.
For 5 years, the coalition has decided what this country’s legal aid priorities should be. On 7 May, it will be our turn
In the run-up to the official start of the general election campaign, lobby groups, including those in the legal and advice sector, have been publishing their manifestos or other documents aimed at influencing the political parties. Some amount to not much more than wish lists, while others, such as the Low Commission’s follow-up report, include new research and analysis, as well as their policy asks. The Legal Aid Practitioners Group manifesto includes much detailed analysis and many policy requests, including returning advice on housing benefits and refugee family reunion cases to the scope of legal aid.
Looking back over the record of the coalition government, it’s easy to wish the last five years had not happened, such has been the full-scale assault on access to justice. At the centre of this has been the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which ushered in draconian cuts in civil legal aid. The impact of these has been well documented in the pages of Legal Action. The Justice Committee report is the latest critique of LASPO and the fallout from it (see news). The committee argues that the government has failed to heed warnings about the risk of creating advice deserts. It is especially critical of the government’s failure to focus on prevention, rather than concentrating legal aid expenditure on crisis interventions, such as housing possession cases before the county courts.
The strongest argument to make to policy makers about why they should put back some capacity into the legal aid system is that early intervention saves money: it enables problems to be headed off early, rather than escalating to crisis point, when they are far more expensive for the state to resolve – say, when a family with debt problems which could have been easily solved, ends up homeless and needing to be rehoused. The Justice Committee eloquently restates the case for early advice. LAG would suggest, though, that all political parties should recognise that access to justice is important, not just because it saves money in the longer term, but because ensuring equality before the law is an essential duty of the state. It is not an optional extra, depending on how well the economy is doing.
‘Access to justice is a fundamental right, not an optional extra, depending on how well the economy is doing.’
Government is about making difficult choices, particularly when times are hard. LAG argues that some of this government’s choices seem to have been informed by an ideology hostile to an open justice system, rather than just budget pressures. Cuts to the scope of legal aid to save cash did not require LASPO. Previous governments had adjusted scope and the means test, without resorting to primary legislation. LASPO was an attempt by the government to introduce a permanent rump legal system, stripped of its wider duty to provide access to justice across a range of everyday legal problems. The attacks on judicial review and the introduction of employment tribunal fees are also examples of the ideologically motivated assaults on access to justice.
General elections are the opportunity for the electorate to exercise their choice. Weighing up the political parties’ response to the sorts of wish lists referred to above is an important part of this process. More importantly, though, is deciding which political party best reflects what you believe in. For Legal Action readers, we’d suggest demonstrating a genuine commitment to a justice system available to all, regardless of means or status, is paramount.
On 7 May the choice is yours.