ABSTRACT
Lord Pannick makes a number of points which suggest that such amendments to the Bill as he considers necessary are important because rights.
His fi rst point is that ‘the Bill does not recognise that access to justice is an important constitutional principle’ He says that a duty must be imposed on the Lord Chancellor ‘to secure, within the
resources made available, that individuals have access to legal services that effectively meet their needs’. Second, ‘the Bill removes from the scope of legal advice and assistance family cases except where domestic violence is alleged . . . welfare benefi t cases and many other complex areas where the law is a vital safeguard of basic needs for the most vulnerable sections of society’. He adds that ‘the removal of legal aid will result in many hopeless claims being pursued by litigants in person and in many proper claims not being brought or being pursued ineffectively by litigants in person. Do-it-yourself litigation will be as effective as do-it-yourself medical operation. . . In family law there will be what the Commons Justice Committee described as “a perverse incentive” to make allegations of domestic violence to secure legal aid’. Third, ‘The Bill confers on the Lord Chancellor by subordinate legislation the power to take further categories of services out of the scope of legal aid. That is inherently objectionable, and all the more so when the Bill confers no power on the Lord Chancellor to add services back into the scope of legal aid, for example if experience shows the lack of wisdom in the exclusion or when the economy improves.’ Fourth, ‘The money that the Government hopes to save by these measures needs to be assessed by reference to the fi nancial costs that will have to be met by the State. Judges will need to deal with many more hearings in which litigants in person waste valuable and expensive court resources. The health and housing agencies of the State will have the burden of dealing with the consequences of vulnerable children and adults being denied the benefi ts to which the law entitles them.’ He says that there is justifi able criticism of the fact that the Government has conducted no study of the costs of the provisions contained in the Bill.
