Today's post was written by Jacob Lagnado, research and information officer at ICAR@Runnymede 

Last week Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke announced to the House of Commons his plans for a root-and-branch reform of publicly funded legal assistance, commonly known as legal aid. He made no secret of the cost-cutting purpose of the changes, stating that the legal aid budget should make a ‘substantial contribution’ to the 23% reduction in the Ministry of Justice’s budget for the next four years.  Shadow Justice minister Sadiq Khan echoed the “need to reduce the legal aid budget”, citing the previous government’s introduction of fixed fees, while promising that the opposition would look hard at where these proposed cuts fall.

The first paper, published by the government last week on the issue, Proposals for the reform of legal aid in England and Wales proposes to essentially remove publicly funded advice and representation, with some limited exceptions, from the areas of education, employment, immigration, welfare benefits and some housing and debt work. Meanwhile the second consultation paper seeks to take some initial steps in the direction of the marketisation of legal services proposed under the previous government.

The announcement came as the Law Society published the final part of its own review of access to justice, which argues for ways to make savings without reducing legal aid provision.

Migrants and refugees are often considered among the most vulnerable sectors of society, so what do the proposals hold for them? Although asylum applications per se will continue to be funded - on the usual means tested basis – asylum support will not, as it now falls under the general category of welfare benefits.

Detainees with immigration or asylum cases pending will continue to receive assistance to make bail and similar applications relating directly to their detention. However non-asylum immigration applications will no longer be eligible for funding. This will affect a range of applications, including entry clearance, leave to remain, and citizenship, which refugees and refugee families may well make. The Green Paper instead argues that self-representation is viable in such cases, despite acknowledging that human rights issues such as the right to family life may be at stake.

For more on the effect on refugees and asylum seekers of recent changes to legal aid see the Information Centre about Asylum and Refugees’ ongoing research into cost and quality in asylum legal aid.