By reducing the threshold at which individuals are eligible for legal support, the government vastly limits the number of people who will have access to justice. The government appears to display no respect for the fundamental principal of equality before the law, as it will allow prohibitive costs to shut out all but those on the very lowest and the very highest of incomes.

More alarming is the reduction in scope of legal aid support, which will remove some kinds of cases from legal aid scheme altogether, including family and employment cases. There is no sound reasoning behind slashing the kinds of cases to which funding can apply. By excluding the vast majority of civil cases, the government has narrowed the meaning of justice to breaking point.

The government has argued that in areas where legal aid will no longer apply at all, other organisations will step in. The reality is, however, that many people will be left without any advice or service, because of limited resources and a lack of suitable alternatives.

The suggestion that the voluntary sector or ‘pro bono’ work will fill the gap is ludicrous. The sheer volume of new people, half a million, who will now be ineligible, cannot all be appropriately provided for through these routes, particularly in light of local government cuts which we know are being passed on to voluntary organisations.

Will there be extra funding provided to back these alternatives? What will the cost be to organisations such as the Citizen’s Advice Bureau as they deal with the scores of extra people that will turn to them if these cuts go through? Will the government undertake to fill this ‘advice gap’?

The other danger of relying on ‘other organisations’ to support those ineligible for legal aid support is that it will create a two-tier system of advice – even if all advice sought could be provided for through alternative means, which seems unlikely, it is hard to argue that the advice received would always be an appropriate replacement for professional legal advice and representation.

The government has also suggested that they would like more people to represent themselves, despite the fact that those who choose to do so are statistically less likely to win their cases, even if the merits of their case are sound.

The result will be that those who can afford it will receive professional legal representation, and those who cannot will have to rely on representing themselves, the fluctuating charity of local law firms and the advice of voluntary organisations. The consequence is inequality before the law.

Sadly, the cuts have already begun, with devastating effects. In the handling of one recent case, the Legal Services Commission has brought tragedy upon many families from across the country.

The case was a group action against a large pharmaceutical company, which brought together the families of more than 100 children who were seeking compensation after the use of a drug during pregnancy allegedly caused disabilities in their children.

In November, after six years and over £3m of funding in legal aid, the Legal Services Commission refused to provide the final £750,000 of funding required for the final hearing. Consequently, the case had to be dropped, as the families themselves could not afford to fund the action.

One of the families in this case resides in my constituency, and would never have the necessary means to take on a huge corporation in a situation such as this without the support of legal aid.

The decision by the Legal Services Commission to cut funding at such a crucial stage illustrates the devastation that these cuts will have on ordinary people, who depend upon legal aid so that they may attempt to right the alleged wrongs against them.

As a civil law claim for compensation, this case falls into an area of civil law that would not receive any funding under these reforms. How can it be that the government would limit the pursuit of justice to the wealthy, as they remove this sort of case from legal aid eligibility altogether? Without legal aid, most ordinary people would be unable to raise claims such as these, in a search for justice for their families.

In the introduction to the consultation document on the proposals for reform, can be read the line ‘The government strongly believes that access to justice is a hallmark of civil society’.

Access to justice in a civil society must be available for all cases where individuals have been legally wronged by others. Justice, by its very nature, is something that every person is entitled to, and does not exclude those who cannot afford to pay for the process.

I urge the government to reconsider their proposals, and to listen to the professional associations, human rights groups and voluntary organisations who are telling them in this consultation that these reforms are a dangerous attack on our democracy.

Read David Green‘s recent article on how cutting the cost of access to legal advice could open the doors to justice for many

Photo: Steve Calcott