Unite response to the Ministry of Justice Consultation: Transforming legal aid: delivering a more credible and efficient system

Transcription

1 Unite response to the Ministry of Justice Consultation: Transforming legal aid: delivering a more credible and efficient system To: legalaidreformmoj@justice.gsi.gov.uk, 4 June 2013 This response is submitted by Unite the Union. Unite is the UK s largest trade union with 1.5 million members across the private and public sectors. The union s members work in a range of industries including all the manufacturing and transport sectors, financial services, print, media, construction, local government, education, health and not for profit sectors. Executive Summary Unite is wholly against the proposals under consultation. On the back of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO), they are a further step in dismantling of the UK s legal aid service and the continued erosion of our justice system. These policies amount to the abolition of one of the crucial pillars of the welfare state free legal advice and representation for all those who need it most. The proposals under consultation in relation to the provision of criminal legal services and further cuts to civil legal aid amount to a catastrophic attack on access to justice for the poorest and most vulnerable members of society, removing key rights like access to judicial review, penalising those with no other recourse such as the homeless and migrants including 1

2 refugees, as well as threatening the equality of arms in a courtroom. This will undoubtedly lead to miscarriages of justice. The funding proposals in the consultation will destroy community legal services and herald a race to the bottom which will only favour large corporate firms that can absorb the losses. The proposal in relation to price competitive tendering for criminal law services will remove the right for all but the very wealthy to instruct the solicitor of their choice. The reality will be that these cuts will mean that there will no longer be specialist legal aid lawyers in the near future. Unite case in detail Introduction i) Unite is wholly and fundamentally opposed to all the proposals in this consultation. They will be a disaster for working people across all walks of life and are a further disastrous blow to one of the core pillars of our society equal access to justice and the legal system. ii) Unite has previously made clear in its submission in opposition to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) and others that this government is engaging in an enormous ideological attack on access to justice. This will do untold damage to our communities, standard of living and social cohesion. iii) Unite represents members across the whole UK economy, including many that work in community legal aid and advice organisations, such as law centres, and CABx. Unite also has members in charities that support and advocate for vulnerable people such as Shelter and Mind, as well as trade unions and other organisations that provide legal support for the public, including through legal aid. Many of these organisations, once publically lauded by David Cameron through his Big Society rhetoric, are facing financial meltdown due to the continued reduction of their funding. iv) Similarly these proposals will mean the end of specialist criminal legal services for many people as the competitive price tendering proposals will make choice of representative the preserve of the wealthy few. Trade union members, such as those in Unite, currently have access to specialist criminal legal services for allegations of work-related criminal acts as part of their membership benefits. These include workers in all areas of the economy, from lorry drivers to health professionals. These proposals will mean that this 2

3 service may no longer be available in many cases, impacting on up to 6.5 million trade union members, just over a quarter of all UK employees 1. v) In addition, Unite represents many workers in low paying sectors of the economy as well as unemployed members through our community membership. These groups are regularly facing the brunt of the Government s assault on living standards and the welfare state. Many of these people face a daily struggle to get by and increasing insecurity and vulnerability to criminality and unlawful activity. These people are finding that there is nowhere to turn for legal representation and support as community legal centres are closed down and law firms are pushed out of legal aid work. The proposals will only make this worse especially those that will shut down judicial review and limit legal aid to those people who have documentary evidence that they have been lawfully esident in the UK for more than one year. vi) These proposals are extremely regressive and damaging, and will no doubt be highly discriminatory to the most vulnerable people in society. The Government should be ashamed even to be consulting on them. Dubious justification vii) The background to these proposals is the Government s fiscal austerity policies. Unite is clear that these policies are ideological dogma and economically wrong-headed. They have not, and will not, produce a recovery, but rather have sucked demand out of the economy and led to ever increasing debt, inequality and underemployment 2. The reality is that these policies serve no purpose other than to justify the vicious ideological destruction of the welfare state. The policies under consultation only underline this fact. viii)in his Ministerial Foreword, the Lord Chancellor says that expenditure on legal aid has spiralled out of control. This is simply not true. According to the House of Commons Justice Committee, legal aid costs in the UK has remained fairly consistent over the last decade, based on statistics that do not take into account recent reductions due to the last round of cuts 3. ix) The best solution to increased numbers of legal cases is to tackle the causes of many of those cases. For example if Government wants to reduce judicial review cases they need to make sure that the public bodies act lawfully more of the time. The same goes for criminal activity. The comparative research 4 that Government has referred to highlights that while comparability is difficult 1 p77-trade-union-membership-2012.pdf

4 Britain s higher legal aid costs are mirrored both by lower investment in courts and much high per capita crime overall 5. The higher costs are also explained by the fact that we have an adversarial system whereas in other countries, which the government is always ready to compare us with, their legal systems are inquisitorial. x) Similarly the Lord Chancellor s claim that the system has lost public credibility is equally untrue. Successive opinion polls have found widespread public support for the legal aid system. Most recently, a ComRes poll for the Bar Council (May 2013) 6 found that two-thirds (67%) of the British public agree that legal aid is a price worth paying for living in a fair society. Two-thirds (68%) also agree that, at less than 0.5% of annual government spending, legal aid is a worthwhile investment to ensure basic freedoms. xi) Eight out of ten (83%) of the 2,033 polled said that people accused of a crime should be treated as innocent until proven guilty - only 6% disagree. Seven in ten (71%) people were worried that innocent people could be convicted of crimes they did not commit if they are forced to use the cheapest defence lawyer available. While three-quarters (75%) of the public say that it will be the poorest members of society who will be most affected if the Government makes cuts to legal aid. Competitive tendering xii) Unite is deeply opposed to competitive tendering for legal aid work on principle and does not accept that the proposals will provide a more credible or efficient system. Price competition will lead to a rapid race to the bottom both in terms of quality and terms and conditions for legal aid staff. Similarly it will radically remove the right of a client to choose their legal representative, leading to a collapse in specialist legal services and a far greater likelihood of miscarriages of justice. xiii)the proposals are poorly thought out and do not tackle the very many complex issues which arise in procurement and supply of criminal legal services. There is an underlying implication that the reforms are not being made with the view to improve the legal system but rather to arbitrarily reduce the numbers of people using it. This is reinforced by the short consultation period and the insistence that these proposals can be brought forward through secondary legislation. Unite members experience xiv) Before this consultation was announced Unite surveyed its members in community advice and legal services to see the effects of the LASPO cuts. 5 The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2002) (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention) 6 4

5 The results were shocking. 93% of respondents said that their organisation had experienced increased demand since the Coalition took office while 95% had experienced cuts to funding over the last two years. Of those, 79% had experienced cuts to legal aid funding with a further 44% experiencing cuts from local government. These cuts have meant cuts to services delivered (79%), job losses (81%), low staff morale (77%), increased workloads (86%), pay freezes (70%) and cuts to pay (21%). 42% reported reductions in service quality while 12% reported that their organisation was facing closure. Before these new cuts were announced 43% said that they expected further funding cuts over the next year while 51% reported that they simply did not know. 31% reported that they were not confident or very unconfident that their organisation will survive over the next 2 years. xv) The comments from the survey also highlight that these cuts have been a false economy as clients and costs are simply being transferred to other parts of the public sector. These re-emerge as mental health problems, in the criminal justice system, evictions and homelessness and children not going to school. Others point out that unresolved cases, such as on immigration issues end up costing the public purse much more than if they are dealt with early through good advice. xvi) These shocking new proposals herald a further attack on this country s commitment to the rule of law, a fundamental safeguard within our constitution to ensure that no-one, including the Government is above the law. This has to be seen in the context of daily changes in policy and legislation, affecting people s every day rights and, at the same time, taking away people s ability to challenge the onslaught and hold government to account this is quite extraordinary when most of the changes were not part of either of the Coalition parties manifestos and are being bought via secondary legislation so that the changes would not even be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. xvii) The proposals amount to a full-scale attack on our right as a community, as people resident in the UK, to mount legitimate challenges with expert help against the might of the State. Consultation Questions 1. Do you agree with the proposal that criminal legal aid for prison law matters should be restricted to the proposed criteria? Please give reasons. 1.1 No. These proposals would limit the human rights of prisoners particularly on treatment issues. At present when someone is in prison, criminal legal aid is available (subject to means and merits tests) for legal assistance under four categories: (1) treatment; (2) sentencing; (3) disciplinary matters; and (4) 5

6 Parole Board reviews. The proposals would cut legal aid for all treatment cases. This includes prison conditions (food, night sanitation, library services, correspondence, incentives), treatment by staff (bullying, abuse), discrimination, communications and visits, mother and baby issues, compassionate release, and access to behaviour courses. The proposals would cut legal aid for certain sentencing matters (categorisation, segregation, close supervision centre and dangerous and severe personality disorder referrals and assessments, resettlement issues, and planning and license conditions). The proposals would cut legal aid for all disciplinary matters unless they are referred to an independent adjudicator. Legal aid would be retained for parole Board cases. 1.2 There are also proposed changes to the way that prison law will be delivered, so that this area would be part of competitively tendered crime contracts rather than having discrete contracts. There are proposed fee cuts of 17.5% to fixed fees and hourly rates for solicitors working in this area. 1.3 Unite believes that these proposals will decimate prison law advice, a very specialist area dealing with some of the most vulnerable including those with serious mental health problems. The result will be more people in prison feeling angry, excluded and with outlet for grievances. This will have a serious impact on prison workers and an overall impact on society. Many prisoners will struggle to use the complaints procedures due to literacy issues and mental health problems. Complaint procedures also do not have the same status. 2. Do you agree with the proposal to introduce a financial eligibility threshold on applications for legal aid in the Crown Court? Please give reasons. 2.1 No. Unite is wholly opposed to this proposal. The current financial threshold imposed in the Magistrate s Court excludes many people from defending criminal allegations. The proposals to extend thresholds to the Crown Court may mean that many people could face serious criminal allegations without access to legal aid. 2.2 Unite members that require criminal legal services currently have access to this service through niche service provided through union legal services. Under contract proposals Unite members would be denied access to such services on the basis that, niche providers will be excluded from the system due to their inability to compete for a contract on volume. Unite members are typically professional people with no previous experience of the criminal justice system and of good character in other words the hard working public that Chris Grayling refers to in his foreword. 6

7 2.3 The proposed thresholds, alongside threats to niche providers, will mean that many ordinary working families will find themselves excluded and not be able to afford the costs of defending a case in the Crown Court. These proposals will severely limit the choice available to those people, as an application for legal aid will only reimburse those that have been in touch with a contracted firm. Unsurprisingly these changes will have no effect on the wealthy who can afford to contract private firms. 3. Do you agree that the proposed threshold is set an appropriate level? Please give reasons. 3.1 No. As in Q2 the proposed thresholds are set far too low and this will lead to gross unfairness as many hardworking families are excluded from access to justice. 3.2 Unite is particularly concerned that the basis for calculation of eligibility takes into account joint household income and that the method of calculating disposable incomes does not take into account anything other than absolute necessities. This means a true estimate of financial circumstances is not undertaken. 3.3 Using household income is highly problematic as, especially in criminal cases, there is no guarantee that other members of the household would support the case. 3.4 Either way the 18,000 average disposable household income figure is highly dubious. Average (median) gross annual wage of all workers is 21,473 (ASHE data 2012) and this figure implies that in a household with two full time working adults near half their income is disposable. 3.5 The outcomes of these proposals would be to introduce a four tier system of justice where there are different rights for: those with a passport; those with disposable income up to 33,344 who will be eligible with a contribution; those with disposable income of 37,500 who will have to pay; and lastly those who can afford to instruct whoever they like. 4. Do you agree with the proposed approach for limiting legal aid to those with a strong connection with the UK? Please give reasons. 4.1 No. Unite is horrified by this proposal. This will have a severe impact on many of the most vulnerable people in the UK and will fundamentally undermine the vital concessions granted in LASPO for people who have experienced domestic violence and victims of trafficking. The test will significantly impact on non British residents from gaining legal advice for help in other areas such as family law and child-care disputes and housing and 7

8 community care matters as well as impact on British citizens whose parents/partners/relatives are not British. 4.2 It is also likely to affect many people who are legally living in the UK or even British citizens but have not been resident for long enough or are unable to prove that they have been. This could include homeless people or people entering the UK on a legal visa (working, spouse, student etc). These people will be at the mercy of all kinds of abuse and unlawful treatment if they are unable to pay for legal support in their first year in the UK or for those who are deemed not lawfully resident the situation is far graver. 4.3 Many UK citizens, the hard working tax payer referred to, simply do not have documentary proof of their status and so will be debarred from legal aid at a crucial point in their lives. This will not enhance public confidence in the legal aid system and will be a bureaucratic burden on small businesses. 4.4 For other people, their status is not clear. They would be unable to access legal aid without the assistance of an immigration lawyer, who could help them resolve their status and obtain documentation, but there is no longer any legal aid for immigration work, thus creating an impossible catch Examples of people who would be adversely affected by the Residence test : All children under 12 months of age. Anyone, including migrant children whose immigration status has not been regularised or who have not been here for 12 months. (It is immaterial if the person has been here for many years, attended school here, worked and paid taxes etc. Many people who are technically in the UK unlawfully were brought here as children but their carers failed to regularise their residence. These people will not be eligible for any legal aid). Survivors of torture by UK forces abroad or the family members of those unlawfully killed by UK forces in their home country (for example in Iraq or Afghanistan) could not obtain legal aid to challenge breaches of their human rights. A person leaving a violent partner who has not been in the UK for 12 months or who becomes unlawfully present in the UK by virtue of leaving the violent partner could not receive legal aid to obtain a non-molestation order to protect themselves from further violence. A survivor of domestic violence who is not lawfully in the UK or who has not lawfully been in the UK for at least 12 months could not obtain legal aid for advice on family for matters such as divorce, financial disputes or disputes about the children in the relationship. A person with significant disabilities whether mental or physical, but without immigration status or with lawful residence of less than 12 months would not be able to seek any legal advice in relation to housing or community care issues 8

9 4.6 Unite believes that this issue may be legally challengeable. 5. Do you agree with the proposal that providers should only be paid for work carried out on an application for judicial review, including a request for reconsideration of the application at a hearing, the renewal hearing, or an onward permission appeal to the Court of Appeal, if permission is granted by the Court (but that reasonable disbursements should be payable in any event)? Please give reasons. 5.1 No. Unite is strongly opposed to this proposal. 5.2 The majority of the work and thus cost of carrying out a judicial review takes place when initially preparing cases. This means that costs will be incurred before a case even reaches a judge. This is because many cases are settled before proceedings are issued or once they are issued. Due to cases being settled before a permission decision, there is no gurantee that lawyers will get paid for the work and there is only a limited amount of risk that they can carry before their practices start becoming financially unviable. This therefore has a knock on impact on people s access to justice because they will not be able to find lawyers who are willing to take their cases at risk. 5.3 This is extremely damaging to both access to justice and democratic accountability. Judicial review is a vital option to people to challenge unlawful decisions made by public bodies. This change will give public bodies impunity to flout statutory duties and procedures, especially those that affect the most socially excluded and least able to take legal action. The result will be less accountable government, social exclusion and suffering often with other knock on costs to the taxpayer. 5.4 At a time of increased financial pressures on public decision makers and sweeping cuts to public services, it is more crucial than ever that these scrutiny measures are in place. 5.5 The consultation s assumption that because cases are regularly withdrawn before a full hearing means that these cases have no merit is deeply misconceived. In many cases just the threat of judicial review is enough to resolve the issue. In most of these cases the authority itself realises that it would not win the case and therefore settles in favour of the claimant before they need to go to court and therefore saves the tax-payer money. For example, after an application for permission to judicially review the decision of a local authority to refuse a family homelessness assistance is issued, it might be suitable for lawyers acting for the family to contact the council s lawyers to see if they will reverse the decision. If the parties do agree to settle the claim without the intervention of the court, and without the permission application going before a judge, then there is a risk the lawyers 9

10 will still not get paid, even though they have achieved the best result for their clients. 5.6 On the new proposals legal aid would not pay for this work because the permission application was never looked at and therefore determined, even though the family s lawyers had taken steps which also had the consequence of reducing the legal costs and even though the case was clearly meritorious as evidenced by the decision maker having backed down. It is possible to get costs directly from the other side, but often settlement is negotiated on the basis that costs will not be sought. The new proposals therefore propel lawyers into the perverse situation of putting themselves out of business as a consequence of acting in the best interests of their clients, and being penalised for saving costs. Unite believes that this will lead lawyers to take cases to court rather than settle in order to guarantee that they receive payment. 6. Do you agree with the proposal that legal aid should be removed for all cases assessed as having borderline prospects of success? Please give reasons. 6.1 No. Assessing cases success rate is not an accurate science. This proposal will exclude a large number of potentially successful cases and therefore will be extremely detrimental to many people who cannot afford to fund their cases privately. Again this change will make the justice system a privilege for the rich rather than a public service. Many important cases clarify points of law and are of major public interest, in fact it is often cases of huge public interest which are very difficult to assess in terms of merit. 7. Do you agree with the proposed scope of criminal legal aid services to be competed? Please give reasons. 7.1 No. As has already been said, Unite is fundamentally opposed to these proposals. 8. Do you agree that, given the need to deliver further savings, a 17.5% reduction in the rates payable for those classes of work not determined by the price competition is reasonable? Please give reasons. 8.1 No. As Unite has clearly explained, there is no need to make further savings. Such a policy is based on an extreme ideological austerity programme that Unite rejects. These cuts are doing untold damage to the British economy while creating an increasingly unequal, unjust and exclusionary society. 8.2 The figures used to reach these conclusions are out of date and do not reflect the massive cuts that have already taken place to the legal aid budget. The figures also do not take into account recent changes such as the introduction 10

11 of fixed fees in the police station, Magistrates and Crown Court, the capping of Defence Costs Orders and the introduction of defendant contributions towards defence costs in the Crown Court. These savings must be taken into account in making policy. 9. Do you agree with the proposal under the competition model that three years, with the possibility of extending the contract term by up to two further years and a provision for compensation in certain circumstances for early termination, is an appropriate length of contract? Please give reasons. 9.1 No. Unite is fundamentally opposed to the competition model, not least in this case because the contract is far too short for organisations to sustainably budget. 10. Do you agree with the proposal under the competition model that with the exception of London, Warwickshire/West Mercia and Avon and Somerset /Gloucestershire, procurement areas should be set by the current criminal justice system areas? Please give reasons No. Unite does not agree with this proposal, or the proposed introduction of the competition model. 11. Do you agree with the proposal under the competition model to join the following criminal justice system areas: Warwickshire with West Mercia; and Gloucestershire with Avon and Somerset, to form two new procurement areas? Please give reasons No. Unite does not agree with this proposal, or the proposed introduction of the competition model. 12. Do you agree with the proposal under the competition model that London should be divided into three procurement areas, aligned with the area boundaries used by the Crown Prosecution Service? Please give reasons No. Unite does not agree with this proposal, or the proposed introduction of the competition model. 13. Do you agree with the proposal under the competition model that work tendered should be exclusively available to those who have won competitively tendered contracts within the applicable procurement areas? Please give reasons No. Unite believes this policy will be a disaster, destroying many community based legal services and excluding niche providers. The outcomes will be 11

12 socially divisive, lead to job losses and ultimately poorer quality legal support to people that need it and miscarriages of justice as a result. 14. Do you agree with the proposal under the competition model to vary the number of contracts in each procurement area? Please give reasons No. Unite is fundamentally opposed to the competition model for contracts. It will have a devastating impact on many providers, especially small community and niche providers. As in Q13 the outcome will be a crash in service quality, job losses and miscarriages of justice. 15. Do you agree with the factors that we propose to take into consideration and are there any other factors that should to be taken into consideration in determining the appropriate number of contracts in each procurement area under the competition model? Please give reasons No. Unite rejects this proposal and its aim of reducing contracts. The outcomes on community legal services will be devastating. 16. Do you agree with the proposal under the competition model that work would be shared equally between providers in each procurement area? Please give reasons No. Unite does not agree with the competition model. It will eliminate choice for clients and lead to a race to the bottom in terms of service quality and costs. 17. Do you agree with the proposal under the competition model that clients would generally have no choice in the representative allocated to them at the outset? Please give reasons No. The elimination of choice of legal representative will be a disaster to clients. Many cases require legal experts on specialist issues. At the same time clients, especially vulnerable clients, will face a complete lottery in terms of both the quality and sympathy they receive from their legal representative. This can only be to the detriment of clients, leading to miscarriages of justice and the deepening of social exclusion 18. Which of the following police station case allocation methods should feature in the competition model? Please give reasons. Option 1(a) cases allocated on a case by case basis Option 1(b) cases allocated based on the client s day of month of birth Option 1(c) cases allocated based on the client s surname initial 12

13 Option 2 cases allocated to the provider on duty Other 18.1 None of the above. Unite is fundamentally opposed to the competition model. 19. Do you agree with the proposal under the competition model that for clients who cannot be represented by one of the contracted providers in the procurement area (for a reason agreed by the Legal Aid Agency or the Court), the client should be allocated to the next available nearest provider in a different procurement area? Please give reasons No. Unite is opposed to all the proposals under consultation. 20. Do you agree with the proposal under the competition model that clients would be required to stay with their allocated provider for the duration of the case, subject to exceptional circumstances? Please give reasons No. Unite is opposed to all the proposals under consultation. 21. Do you agree with the following proposed remuneration mechanism under the competition model? Please give reasons. Block payment for all police station attendance work per provider per procurement area based on the historical volume in area and the bid price Fixed fee per provider per procurement area based on their bid price for magistrates court representation Fixed fee per provider per procurement area based on their bid price for Crown Court litigation (for cases where the pages of prosecution evidence does not exceed 500) Current graduated fee scheme for Crown Court litigation (for cases where the pages of prosecution evidence exceed 500 only) but at discounted rates as proposed by each provider in the procurement area 21.1 No. Unite is fundamentally opposed to the competition model. This proposed fee structure will potentially lead to increased incentives for legal advisers to push for guilty pleas as the payment for representation will be the same but the costs will be much lower. This problem further underlines the need for clients to have a choice of legal adviser. 22. Do you agree with the proposal under the competition model that applicants be required to include the cost of any travel and subsistence disbursements under each fixed fee and the graduated fee when submitting their bids? Please give reasons. 13

14 22.1 No. Unite is opposed to all the proposals under consultation. 23. Are there any other factors to be taken into consideration in designing the technical criteria for the Pre Qualification Questionnaire stage of the tendering process under the competition model? Please give reasons Unite is opposed to all the proposals under consultation and therefore has no comment on this issue. 24. Are there any other factors to be taken into consideration in designing the criteria against which to test the Delivery Plan submitted by applicants in response to the Invitation to Tender under the competition model? Please give reasons Unite is opposed to all the proposals under consultation and therefore has no comment on this issue. 25. Do you agree with the proposal under the competition model to impose a price cap for each fixed fee and graduated fee and to ask applicants to bid a price for each fixed fee and a discount on the graduated fee below the relevant price cap? Please give reasons No. Unite is opposed to all the proposals under consultation. 26. Do you agree with the proposals to amend the Advocates Graduated Fee Scheme to: introduce a single harmonised basic fee, payable in all cases (other than those that attract a fixed fee), based on the current basic fee for a cracked trial; reduce the initial daily attendance fee for trials by between approximately 20 and 30%; and taper rates so that a decreased fee would be payable for every additional day of trial? Please give reasons No. Unite is strongly opposed to this proposal. As discussed in Q22 Unite is worried that this may lead to damaging incentives for legal representatives to resolve cases quickly at the expense of their client. 27. Do you agree that Very High Cost Case (Crime) fees should be reduced by 30%? Please give reasons No. Unite rejects the need for further cuts. The statistics used in this consultation are out of date and the argument used to justify austerity is economically illiterate. These cuts will simply add more costs to the taxpayer 14

15 in other areas and lead to many people being excluded from justice and proper representation. 28. Do you agree that the reduction should be applied to future work under current contracts as well as future contracts? Please give reasons No. Unite is opposed to this proposal. 29. Do you agree with the proposals: to tighten the current criteria which inform the decision on allowing the use of multiple advocates; to develop a clearer requirement in the new litigation contracts that the litigation team must provide appropriate support to advocates in the Crown Court; and to take steps to ensure that they are applied more consistently and robustly in all cases by the Presiding Judges? Please give reasons No. Unite believes that the criteria is already extremely strict and any further changes are not justified. 30. Do you agree with the proposal that the public family law representation fee should be reduced by 10%? Please give reasons No. Unite is opposed to this proposal. 31. Do you agree with the proposal that fees for self-employed barristers appearing in civil (non-family) proceedings in the County Court and High Court should be harmonised with those for other advocates appearing in those courts. Please give reasons No. Unite is opposed to this proposal. 32. Do you agree with the proposal that the higher legal aid civil fee rate, incorporating a 35% uplift payable in immigration and asylum Upper Tribunal appeals, should be abolished? Please give reasons No. There has been no increase in legal aid fees for over 20 years and in the last years, a 10% cut to fees was already made; further cuts will make it extremely difficult for legal practices and law centres to remain financially viable 33. Do you agree with the proposal that fees paid to experts should be reduced by 20%? Please give reasons. 15

16 33.1 No. The evidence of experts is crucial in many legal proceedings e.g. family care proceedings, asylum cases. There have already been cuts in fees for experts and a further cut will drive down quality; consider the possibility of miscarriages of justice also due to inaccurate or poor expert evidence because they are unable to attract the best experts 34. Do you agree that we have correctly identified the range of impacts under the proposals set out in this consultation paper? Please give reasons No. Unite is extremely concerned about the impact of these changes on huge numbers of people. Unite believes that these issues will have a hugely damaging impact on many working families as well as vulnerable and excluded people on low incomes. Statistically this will have a hugely discriminatory impact on certain ethnic minorities, women and disabled people Unite believes that the impact assessment completely fails to recognise the severity of the proposals under consideration, the impacts they will have on access to justice in our society and the potential increase in miscarriages of justice that will result. The Government should be ashamed to be even consulting on these proposals. 35. Do you agree that we have correctly identified the extent of impacts under these proposals? Please give reasons No. See Question Are there forms of mitigation in relation to impacts that we have not considered? 36.1 No. See Question 34. This response is submitted by: Howard Beckett Director of Legal and Affiliated Services, Unite the Union Howard.Beckett@unitetheunion.org 04/06/2013 For further information and clarifications please contact: James Lazou, Research Officer, Unite the Union James.lazou@unitetheunion.org Annette Cowell Ministry of Justice, 102 Petty France, London SW1H 9AJ legalaidreformmoj@justice.gsi.gov.uk 16