Public money wasted by Legal Services Commission
Article published: Monday, December 6th 2010
Public money is being ‘wasted’ while vulnerable people are denied access to justice, claim legal aid campaigners in Manchester. They are calling on the Legal Services Commission to back down from defending a challenge taken by two law centres to have their funding restored.
The Legal Services Commission (LSC), the agency responsible for the allocation of funding for legal aid cases, is allegedly spending tens of thousands of pounds fighting a justice review by South Manchester Law Centre (SMLC) and Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit (GMIAU) challenging funding cuts.
A hearing at the High Court last month gave SMLC the right to a full judicial review of the LSC’s decision only to award it one sixth of its previous immigration casework, and GMIAU have since joined the claim. SMLC claims the LSC gave an estimate of £22,000 for legal costs for the first hearing alone. However, campaigners estimate that this could reach the £100,000 mark should the LSC pursue the case all the way – money which they say could be better spent on providing access to justice.
In response to the allegation of this estimated sum the LSC said that they “are not in a position to comment on the costs of the case as it is ongoing.”
Nor is the Ministry of Justice forthcoming with an answer as to how much money is being spent. In a parliamentary question posed by Gorton MP Gerald Kaufman on how much money and working hours have been spent by the LSC on defending cases brought in relation to legal aid tendering, the Legal Aid Minister Jonathon Djangoly could only say “we do not currently hold the information required.” He also revealed that in total 41 claims have been issued against the LSC contesting the allocation of legal aid.
Now the centres and their supporters are calling on the LSC to back down from the challenge to ensure that public money is channeled properly to where it is needed, in line with the LSC’s stated mission to “maximise access to quality legal aid to meet the diverse needs of the clients we serve.”
Denise McDowell, Director of GMIAU told MULE, “The continued intransigence of the Legal Services Commission in coming to a resolution about the loss of legal aid for immigration advice and representation in Manchester is causing great harm. What the LSC are spending on legal proceedings to defend themselves against the indefensible is money that could be spent on valuable services to people who are vulnerable and in great need.
“The loss of income that we will experience as a result the 70 per cent cut to legal aid contract could be covered by the costs of the LSC’s legal department on this one single action and still have change to spare.”
The two centres have been locked in an ongoing battle with the LSC for several months following the decision to not fully renew their funding for legal aid contracts. As MULE has reported over the past few months, the introduction of a ‘competitive tendering process’ saw not-for-profit legal aid providers pitted against one another with the result that SMLC lost all its contracts to provide advice in employment, benefits and housing law and the majority of its immigration funding. Meanwhile GMIAU’s casework funding was slashed by 70 per cent.
Caseworker Sukhdeep Singh says that SMLC is now being forced to focus vital energy and resources into the legal challenge.
“The situation is very frustrating as it means that substantial amounts of the law centre’s work has to be dedicated to carrying out judicial review. This work taken on means that we can’t deliver the service for which there is a great demand.
“The judicial review is a waste of money. The LSC are hiring a QC that is going to cost a lot of money to defend this case. That money would clearly be better spent in fulfilling the terms of the LSC which are to provide advice to people most in need.”
Singh also explained that the adverse effects of the cuts are already being experienced by clients at SMLC.
“One of the effects of the law centre losing our case workers in benefits, employment and housing is that people coming here with multiple problems are not able to access these joined-up service anymore.”
“From now on they have to be referred out of the law centre for other areas of advice, which is not ideal in terms of the service they receive. The law centre has had a reputation for the holistic advice it provides – so that somebody with immigrations problems connected with housing could all be dealt with in one advice centre.”
In response to these comments the LSC responded by saying: “It’s important to note that SMLC has been awarded a contract to provide immigration services under the new contract. Within the Greater Manchester area there were 12 organisations tendering for work, including six different law centres. Given there is only a limited amount of work available, it is inevitable that some providers will be disappointed by the outcome.”
Yet this leaves Manchester as the only major city in the country not to have a law centre, while of the three organisations providing free immigration services in the city, one is a national agency which took 70 per cent of all contracts.
In their judicial review claim the law centres are arguing that the process by which funding was awarded was flawed as it failed to take into account the quality of services provided by organisations, while the number of caseworkers ended up being the decisive criterion – even though this was not indicated at the outset. Their argument has been strengthened by the successful judicial review of the family law tendering process brought by the Law Society in September, which the Mr Justice Keith in their first hearing noted bore many similarities to that of the immigration process in question. The judge was also of the view that the outcome of the tendering process was disproportionate in its impact, bolstering SMLC’s claim that the selection criteria were irrational and arbitrary.
In response to whether they would desist in defending the judicial review, the LSC said, “Where possible, the LSC is always keen to seek a solution that avoids litigation. We have already held a number of discussions with SMLC and GMIAU. However, the LSC is bound by the tender process we have undertaken and we need to ensure that all applicants involved are fairly treated.”
As part of the campaign to have the funding restored SMLC and GMIAU are calling on their supporters to contact the director of the LSC to demand that they withdraw from the judicial review.
Michael Pooler
Supporters of South Manchester Law Centre are to hold a protest outside the full Manchester City Council meeting this coming Wednesday 8 December, Albert Square at 9am as part of the campaign to save the law centre and restore its funding.
More: Features, Migration and asylum, Welfare
Comments
-
[…] groups affected by the cuts. Many other local organisations – such as Birch Community Centre and South Manchester Law Centre – are facing similar […]
Pingback by Mental health charity slammed by budget reduction — MULE on January 25, 2011 at 8:54 pm -
[…] of the centre last year urged the LSC to desist in defending the judicial review and restore funding, arguing it was wasting public money while people in vulnerable situations were denied access to […]
Pingback by Government agency spent £34,000 in bid to block free legal advice — MULE on March 3, 2011 at 3:17 pm
The comments are closed.
