Written evidence from the Greenwich Housing
Rights (AJ 27)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. In preparing this evidence I have chosen to
concentrate on the issues raised by this inquiry directly affecting
the services provided by the local advice partnership, Greenwich
Legal Advice Services (GLASs), namely:
What impact will the proposed changes have on the
number and quality of practitioners, in all areas of law, who
offer services funded by legal aid?
The Government predicts that there will be 500,000
fewer cases in the civil courts as a result of its proposed reforms.
Which cases will these be and how will the issues they involve
be resolved?
What action could the Government be taking on legal
aid that is not included in the proposals (for example, on Very
High Cost Cases)?
What are the implications of the Government's proposals?
B. Evidence has been provided in relation to
the service-related and user-profile information generated by
GLASs during 2009/10. The evidence outlines the potential impact
of the proposed legal aid reforms by attempting to extrapolate
the impact of those reforms on current GLASs service provision.
C. GLASs is a partnership of five local voluntary
sector advice providers. GLASs provides direct advice and representation
services in social welfare law, along with a range of other services
such as training, social policy work, campaigning and infrastructure
support for local informal advice providers. GLASs receives funding
from the Legal Services Commission and Greenwich Council and a
range of other public-sector and trust funding streams.
D. The reforms represent a further threat to
the funding of essential advice and advocacy services assisting
marginalised and hard-to-reach sections of the community. Reductions
in local authority, legal aid, Financial Inclusion Fund and London
Council's funding could lead to the demise of all not-for-profit,
specialist advice services in the local area (Greenwich). We believe
this situation is replicated throughout the country and would
therefore urge the Government to conduct a strategic review of
funding for advice and advocacy services.
E. A failure to do so will threaten social stability
and reduce access to justice and place even greater pressure on
public services currently trying to grapple with funding reductions
and rationalisation.
1. Impact of the proposed changes on the number
and quality of practitioners, in all areas of law, who offer services
funded by legal aid
1.1 In responding to this point we will outline
the potential impact of the proposed changes on the Greenwich
Legal Advice Services partnership (GLASs) to illustrate the likely
wider impact of the reforms. GLASs is a partnership of five local
not-for-profit advice providers: Greenwich Citizens Advice Bureaux,
Greenwich Community Law Centre, Greenwich Housing Rights, Meridian
Money Advice and Plumstead Community Law Centre. GLASs partners
hold legal aid contracts in housing, employment, welfare benefits
and, since November 2010, debt. GLASs partners also either administer
or contribute to housing possession court duty schemes at both
Woolwich and Bromley County Courts under Legal Services Commission
(LSC) funding arrangements. GLASs partners receive grant funding
from Greenwich Council and a range of other public-sector and
trust funding streams. The combination of funding streams creates
the capacity to offer a broad range of generalist and specialist
advice services and other functions to meet our charitable objectives
such as training, social policy work, campaigning and infrastructure
support for local informal advice providers.
1.2 During 2009-10 the combined GLASs services:
Responded to over 17,000 legal enquiries at the "generalist"
level of advice.
Conducted 1983 "specialist cases", 1741
of which fell within the housing, debt, employment and welfare
benefits categories of social welfare law.
Recovered over £4,000,000 for clients by challenging
benefit decisions, recovering backdated benefits, assisting with
new or rectifying existing benefit claims and through the various
mechanisms of debt advice.
Helped client to manage approximately £10,000,000
of client debt.
The proposed reforms place all of the above outcomes
at risk due to the wider impact of losing three of the four key
areas of social welfare law (see below at 1.4). The impact on
the local community cannot be overlooked.
1.3 Many practitioners rely on a combination
of funding streams to be able to run an effective legal advice
service. The MOJ must take cognisance of the fact that all public-sector
funding streams (and many trusts and other grant funding streams)
are under considerable pressure. The removal from scope of key
areas of social welfare law will lead to the closure of a large
number of practitioners. Those remaining will not be able to access
funding or generate income to provide services to clients requiring
advice in social welfare law. As essential services will close,
highly skilled, experienced and dedicated staff will leave the
advice sector. If the funding environment changes and the LSC
seeks to increase scope (or otherwise undo the proposed reforms)
it will be extremely difficult to recruit advisers with the requisite
skills and experience. Given the number of agencies likely to
close and law firms likely to move away from legal aid law, the
LSC may also find that it will be difficult to find practitioners
in a position to provide legal aid services in the future (should
the economic and funding environment improve).
1.4 GLASs partners are no exception to this and
the loss of essential LSC funding to provide specialist advice
in debt, employment and welfare benefits will place the partnership's
financial viability in serious doubt. During 2009-10 legal aid
funding represented approximately 20% of GLASs funding for service
delivery. For some GLASs partners legal aid represented up to
50% of funding for advice services. Across all partners with a
LSC contract, legal aid funding represented more than 50% of funding
for specialist advice services in social welfare law. The proposed
reforms will reduce funding for social welfare law advice by 68%
(with reference to the current 2010 Civil Contract schedule allocation).
Funding could be reduced further once the reductions in scope
in housing law are taken in to account. A reduction of this level
will lead to the complete loss of specialist advice in debt, welfare
benefits and employment, and the potential loss of all housing
services through the likely closure of GLASs partner agencies.
1.5 Local authority and other grant funding will
be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain to mitigate the loss
of funding for specialist advice services. In fact, grant funders
may be reluctant to provide funding for any advice or advice-related
services due to the instability caused by the proposed reforms.
In reality planned reductions in local authority funding and the
loss of Financial Inclusion Fund and London Council's funding
could lead to the complete collapse of local advice provision,
across all areas and levels of law. The voluntary sector's ability
to provide advice will be reduced to basic support through informal
advocacy organisations. The MOJ hopes these types of organisations
will fill the inevitable void left following the closure of essential
advice services. The organisations noted in the Green Paper as
"alternative routes to resolution", such as AgeUK, CPAG
and Disability Rights Alliance, provide excellent services, but
are not specialist advice providers and cannot replicate current
service provision. The organisations noted in the Green Paper
will also be facing reductions in or increased pressure on funding
and will not be able to access funding to expand advice services.
1.6 Over the course of the law few years the LSC
has positioned practitioners to able to respond effectively to
the complicated nexus of presenting problems (the LSC terminology
is "clusters" of legal problems, such as the underlying
debt and benefit problems leading to rent arrears). The LSC has
formed CLACs, CLANs and now CLASs to enhance joint-working, make
efficiency savings and improve the ability of practitioners to
respond to inter-related legal problems. The latest civil tender
process provided for consortia arrangements for the same reason.
By removing from scope a number of the areas of law regularly
contributing to the escalation of legal problems the reforms will
undermine practitioner's ability to deal effectively with the
areas remaining in scope. For example, a housing practitioner
will have difficulty dealing with a possession case if the client
cannot access advice on debt, welfare benefits, employment (etc.),
the very problems affecting the client's ability to pay their
rent. So by focusing on the housing cases involving litigation
and removing other areas from scope, the reforms are undermining
a client's ability to obtain advice at an early stage, which could
prevent problems from escalating to the point where a landlord
decides that litigation is necessary.
1.7 Many practitioners have undergone difficult,
lengthy and expensive processes to alter their business models
to meet the LSC's requirements. Among other things partnerships
and consortia have been formed, legal entities have been created
and staff have been recruited, retrained and redeployed. Long-term
business strategies have been formed and fundraising has been
focussed on the basis of the LSC's ever-changing plans. The costs
of these activities have been borne almost entirely by practitioners.
Whilst it is accepted that the LSC could not have anticipated
the need to make such large reductions to legal aid spend, some
thought must be given by the MOJ to the constant upheaval wrought
on the advice sector by the recent waves of reform and the impending
threats posed by the current reforms. A failure to do so by the
MOJ is a signal failure to recognise the real losers through this
process - the clients.
2. Reduction in cases in the civil courts
as a result of the proposed reforms
2.1 The proposed reforms in relation to scope
and financial eligibility are unlikely to reduce the number of
cases in the local civil court within the social welfare law categories.
The areas of housing law being removed from scope generate a small
fraction of the cases in the civil courts. The areas of housing
law remaining in scope generate much of the local court's civil
caseload, but such actions are initiated by landlords. We anticipate
that removing debt, welfare benefits and employment from scope
may actually increase the number of housing cases in the local
courts. The vast majority of clients assisted by GLASs with housing
possession cases during 2009-10 reported that the underlying causes
of their inability to pay the rent were debt, benefit, employment
and family law issues. By removing the majority of these issues
from scope, clients will not be able to access the advice and
support they need to resolve problems at an early stage. This
will increase the pressure on tenants and home-owners and increase
the likelihood that rent and mortgage arrears will escalate to
the point that landlords and mortgagees will initiate formal court
proceedings. The lack of available advice and support will increase
the pressure on low-income and/or heavily indebted families, leading
to more complicated and serious family law disputes (and therefore
a greater number of civil court cases).
2.2 The proposed reforms will actually reduce
access to both the civil courts and tribunal systems for those
seeking to challenge actions brought by, for example, local authority
housing departments, or decisions made by, for example, the DWP.
If, as we anticipate, the proposals contribute to the complete
closure of services (including housing services) tenants, employees
and benefit applicants will not be able to access the advice that
would help them to identify challengeable decisions, illegal employment
practices and defendable possession claims. Without access to
specialist advice fewer tenants will mount a defence or apply
to remain in their homes. Fewer benefit applicants will challenge
erroneous decisions by the DWP. Fewer employees will bring claims
against their employers. It is the remit of the court and tribunal
systems to decide on the merit of claims and submitted defences:
it is not the MOJ's remit to remove the ability of employees,
tenants and benefit claimants to participate in the judicial system.
One would question whether the MOJ has consulted judges or tribunal
chairs on the likely impact that the reforms will have on both
the administration of courts and tribunals and the ability of
those systems to ensure equality of access and equality before
the law?
2.3 The proposals runs contrary to the MOJ's
stated objective of ensuring access to justice and HMCS's goal
of ensuring that justice is delivered effectively and efficiently
to the public, and that all citizens according to their differing
needs are entitled to access to justice.
2.4 While the areas of housing law remaining
in scope do often involve litigation, the de-stabilising effect
of the proposed reforms on advice-providers (see above a 1 and
below at 4) will reduce the ability of defendants or, in homelessness
cases, appellants to access advice and mount an effective defence/appeal.
The likely result is an increase in possession orders, evictions
and homelessness.
3. Action the Government could be taking on
legal aid that is not included in the proposals
3.1 We would urge the Government to delay the
proposals and conduct a comprehensive and strategic review of
the funding for advice, information and advocacy services. As
indicated in the Green Paper, legal aid funding is just one of
a number of streams contributing to the provision of advice to
the public. However there appears to be no recognition from the
MOJ that as all public funding streams are under pressure, the
proposals for reforming legal aid will heap further misery on
the poorest and most marginalised sections of the community. We
accept that cuts must be made, but believe that the lack of coherent,
inter-departmental Government policy about the scope and extent
of the reductions could lead to the complete collapse of the advice
sector. Given the impact on just one small fraction of the sector
outlined above, and the resulting potential consequences for local
statutory services, we are gravely concerned that the nationwide
impact of these and other reductions has not been anticipated
or planned for by the Government. Such short-sightedness by the
MOJ and other Government departments, central and local, must
be arrested and more time must be given to assess the true impact
of these reforms on the public.
3.2 The Government is currently consulting on
the proposals to implement the Jackson report recommendations
on civil court funding and costs. It seems premature to consider
reducing scope and eligibility and making other radical changes
to what is considered by the MOJ as an unsustainable legal aid
system before the proposals outlined in the Jackson report are
fully considered. Surely it would be more sensible to consult
on and then implement the changes suggested by the Jackson report,
thereby increasing the financial sustainability of legal aid (or
of legal aid providers) before considering the need to change
the current provision of legal aid services?
4. Implications of the Government's proposals
4.1 We would ask the Committee to consider the
impact of the reforms on the users of legal aid services. To emphasise
this point the Committee should consider that of the 19,000+ users
of GLASs' services during 2009-10:
20% had a disability.
60% were from a BME community.
55% were female.
23% were lone parents.
55% were reliant on Income Support, Jobseeker's Allowance,
Employment Support Allowance or Pension Credit.
60% were either unemployed, full-time students, carers,
unable to work due to illness or retired.
More consideration must be given to how members of
marginalised or socially excluded groups will access advice services
and enforce their rights in the current economic climate. The
reforms are likely to have a disproportionate effect on those
sections of the community least able to make alternative arrangements
for resolving problems or seek alternative avenues to resolve
disputes.
4.2 Much has been made in the Green Paper of
the availability of conditional fee arrangements as a means of
funding legal services. It must be noted that for the vast majority
of cases in the social welfare law categories of law this type
of arrangement is not suitable. Reductions in scope and eligibility
will essentially bar those with social welfare law problems from
participating in the legal system.
4.3 The proposals will de-stabilise advice providers
and the consortia or partnership arrangements put in place by
advice providers to ensure access to essential services. The combined
impact of the legal aid reforms, the loss or reduction of local
authority funding and the loss of funding streams such as the
Financial Inclusion Fund could spell the end for the majority
of the not-for-profit advice sector. While other organisations
will seek to provide ongoing support for their client groups,
it will not be possible to replicate the services currently ensuring
access to the justice system for the most marginalised members
of society.
4.4 The reforms may lead to increased pressure
on public services (at a time when public services are being "rationalised").
Due to the lack of access to advice services for already marginalised
communities we anticipate that homelessness services, Social Services,
the NHS, education departments and the courts system may all feel
the brunt of increased indebtedness, a deterioration in employment
practices, increased criminality, an escalation in rent and mortgage
arrears, family breakdown, domestic abuse and mental and physical
health crises. The cost in real terms of dealing with these issues
will undoubtedly be greater than the planned reduction in legal
aid spend, particularly in relation to the planned reduction in
spend in social welfare law.
4.5 Viewed in isolation the reforms are of great
concern to those providing and attempting to access advice. Viewed
in the context of wider public spending reductions, the reforms
represent a threat to social cohesion and civil society. As noted
above, there appears to have been little thought by the Government
in to the combined impact of a reduction in spending across a
range of funding streams for advice and advocacy at a time when
other social and support services are also facing cuts.
January 2011
| 
