Evidence submitted by James Murray Associates
We understand from a recent press release that
you have called for an inquiry into Legal Aid issues later this
month.
We are a Recruitment business, members of the
Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC) and licensed Immigration
Advisers at certain levels authorised by the Office of the Immigration
Services Commissioner (OISC). We also have a large training centre
accreditated by the British Accreditation Council (BAC) and several
other bodies, to provide further and Higher Education.
We have on two occasions attempted to gain a
Franchise and a Contract to proved services under the Legal Aid
Scheme but have been rejected for two reasons. The main reason
being that we were authorised by OISC, as we are not licensed
by the Law Society and also that there are "enough"
franchises in the postcode "E17" or Waltham Forest Borough
Council. The main reason given by the LSC is that they did not
recognise OISC and the same applied when we first tried to buy
Professional Indemnity Insurance. Incidentally when we eventually
were able to buy this insurance it was at a huge premium to that
charged to a Law Firm.
We are now branching into Employment, Housing
and Family law. As a Recruitment Business we come across matters
that make us aware of totally unscrupulous employers, landlords
and unfair Councils.
To overcome the objections we attempted to buy
a Law Firm but the Law Society stopped the transaction on the
grounds that private non-solicitors could not own a Law Society
registered firm.
This rejection has forced us to turn away numerous
clients who required Legal Aid. These clients were most suitable
for aid and taxpayers' funds would have been well used.
You may be aware of a trend developing in the
legal business today. Many firms are now decreasing or closing
their Immigration advice business because of the latest moves
curbing their ability to charge freely but restricting them to
charges, for example, of a maximum £400 for pre Home Office
decisions.
This action is depriving many people of access
to legal aid and action must be taken to redress this situation.
These firms that are now turning clients away who need help with
immigration matters BUT instead are converting their contracts
to Employment, Housing and Family because there is more money
in those services. These firms are abandoning immigrants and should
not be allowed new contracts.
We submit this development is wrong. If a firm
withdraws, changes or applies for a new franchise, say Employment,
they should be denied the contract. We submit that these contracts
should be awarded to businesses like us who are now denied access
to this funding but are giving the services financing it from
other income streams because we have to continue providing services
to our clients in Recruitment and Training. The firms changing
are only following the gravy bowl.
If action is not taken now to rectify this development
you will create a desert denying aid to thousands of needy people.
This may well be the Government's ultimate aim but we ask if this
is fair? Unless the Government moves now to legalise the status
of illegal immigrants who are in the country today the number
of claimants will increase five fold within the next two years.
With reduced fees no one will be willing to give advice under
the present legal aid terms. We believe that there are in excess
of 5 million illegal immigrants in the UK.
We would suggest that whilst it would be very
unpopular in today's climate we suggest that it would be financially
viable for this Government to legalise these illegal immigrants
(who are now also illegal black market workers), save millions
in Legal aid Fees, Court Costs, Clear Home Office backlogs, reap
rich rewards for the Treasury in the form of NI, PAYE and FINES
placed on unscrupulous workers that have been exploiting the immigrants
in the work place.
Whilst we realise that in the past many Law
Society registered firms did rip the system off. We should not
be penalised for the greed of others in the past.
Your consideration of whether legal aid costs
accounted for more than half the DCA's budget should be looked
at in relation to what percentage it was 10 years ago and the
number of claimants versus the number of claimants now. Our understanding
is that there are probably twice as many claimants today as there
was 10 years ago BUT more importantly the number of Advisers is
decreasing daily. We see that from the number of applicants we
have every time we advertise for a new adviser.
Our aim is to continue to meet the needs of
disadvantaged immigrants and local citizens in Immigration, Employment,
Housing and Family issues. To do this successfully we require
a Franchise and the contracts to claim legal aid in these four
areas. We should not be disadvantaged because we are an OISC registered
firm and because there are other providers in E17 as we are actually
based in E4 and our research has shown that there is no franchised
provider in the E4 postcode area.
Jannie de Wet
Practice Manager
23 February 2004
| 
