Our inquiry
11. On Friday 24th October, following the conclusion
of our oral evidence sessions, we received a further joint memorandum
from the DCA and the LSC setting out an alternative approach,
which differed significantly from the original proposals.[11]
On the same day, the Home Secretary announced that, in order to
clear the backlog of asylum cases "in the most cost-effective
way", up to 15,000 asylum applicants "who sought asylum
in the UK before 2nd October 2000" would be granted permission
to stay in the UK.[12]
As a significant proportion of these cases will have had some
or all of their appeals outstanding, the Home Secretary's 'amnesty'
is expected to make significant—but as yet unquantified—savings
to legal aid expenditure.[13]
Although one would expect that the DCA would take account of these
potential savings when drawing up its own proposals for legal
aid, it has made no mention of it, either in its first memorandum
(submitted on 23rd October) or its second memorandum, which was
submitted on the same day as the Home Office announcement.
12. We were invited by the Lord Chancellor to examine
his original proposals. To fit in with the Government's timetable,
we have had to do so on a very truncated timescale. It is therefore
extremely regrettable that—despite repeatedly promising
to submit a written memorandum to our inquiry—the DCA did
not disclose its revised proposals at an earlier stage. Had it
done so, we would have been in a position to test the merits of
the new proposals with the Department and our other witnesses
when they appeared before us for oral evidence. It is all the
more regrettable that the DCA's tardy memorandum failed to take
any account of the very significant implications of the Home Secretary's
announcement. The combination of these factors put us in an extremely
difficult position when we came to consider our report. Our evidence,
together with the consultation responses, was based wholly on
the Government's original proposals. In addition, the DCA's expenditure
forecasts, which are crucial to the justification for the proposals,
have now been overtaken by the Home Secretary's announcement.
13. The DCA has given the impression, during the
course of this inquiry, of considerable confusion on this matter.
Its original proposals were hurried and not obviously thought
through. The alternative approach, proposed to us at almost the
very last stage, is unhelpfully vague. The Home Secretary's announcement
of October 24th appears to have taken the DCA by surprise and,
as a result, the potential savings which will flow from it have
yet to be determined and factored into the equation. We conclude
that the Department needs to undertake serious further work before
it is able to put any sensible proposals on the table. It is the
nature of that work which forms the basis of our detailed recommendations
below. Until that work has been undertaken, and a properly considered
package of reforms is brought forward, we recommend that the Government
place a moratorium on the proposed time and funding limits to
publicly funded asylum and immigration work. We believe there
should be no delay in addressing the issue of quality representation.
14. We have concentrated in this report on the Government's
original proposals for setting maximum limits on the amount
of public funding available for individual asylum and immigration
cases. However, we have also taken account of the alternative
proposals (despite the limited time in which we had to do so)
and we have made references to them, where appropriate, in our
report. The original proposals for a unique file number and a
new accreditation scheme (which have not been revised significantly)
do not appear to have given rise to much objection in principle,
albeit that some concerns have been expressed about how they will
work in practice. We strongly support the proposals for a new
accreditation scheme. We trust that the Department will address
the concerns as to the detail of the scheme appropriately.
3 
