Evidence from providers
12. A large number of submissions to us from stakeholders,
many of them providers of Specialist Support Services, criticised
the decision to end the service. Many also complained about the
decision making process. The Legal Aid Practitioner Group pointed
out that:
[…] Many of the organisations using the
(Specialist Support Services) rely on it to continue in existence
at all. The loss of this service will therefore, as a consequence,
reduce the number of front-line advisers able to offer help to
the public. We are also aware of organisations that were proposing
to expand their services by initially relying on the (Specialist
Support Services) while they built up their expertise and their
caseload. This way of developing new services will fall with the
(Specialist Support Services).[10]
The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants stated:
Our concerns are two-fold. Firstly we are advising
practitioners in an area of law, immigration and asylum, which
is increasingly complex given the rate of legislation and plethora
of new rules in recent years. One effect may be that non-specialist
legal advisers, particularly those working in isolated conditions
in smaller legal firms and voluntary organisations, may not be
able to continue offering advice in these areas of law if they
cannot readily access the expertise and support of their specialist
peers. Secondly, we are concerned that this will in turn impact
on the ability of a generally vulnerable group, immigration and
asylum applicants, to access high quality advice. We are concerned
at the potential impact of this decision on those who, by nature
of their migrant status, may run a greater risk of poverty, disadvantage
and exclusion.[11]
Citizens Advice, Child Poverty Action Group and London
Advice Services posed the question "is it not a huge waste
of public money to pilot a scheme for 3 years, carry out a thorough
evaluation and award 3 year contracts based on that evaluation
and then cut the service?".[12]
1 
