Legal aid cuts: wasted money and data gaps

A recent report highlights the urgent need for improved data collection to determine if the 2012 legal aid cuts have truly saved money. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO) aimed to reduce civil legal aid costs, but evidence of its effectiveness is lacking. The report, authored by researchers from the University of Exeter in partnership with Public Law Project and Migrants Organise, underscores the necessity for systematic data collection across government entities to assess the actual financial impact of these cuts.

The report, authored by Emma Marshall, Samuel Engle, and Siân Pearce, indicates that without comprehensive data, it is impossible to ascertain whether LASPO has delivered better value for money. Current evidence suggests that the cuts may have merely shifted costs to local authorities and other organisations through increased legal or housing expenses due to delayed court cases and prolonged waiting periods for judgments, which prevent individuals from working and paying taxes.

Key findings from the report include:

• Wasted Resources: The government has spent nearly £400,000 annually on assessing immigration legal aid applications through the Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) scheme, with almost 90% of these applications being approved.
• Broader Impact: Legal aid cuts have increased expenditures in other public sectors, putting additional pressure on courts, health services, local authorities, prisons, and social services.
• Shifting Costs: The reduction in immigration legal aid has particularly affected local authorities responsible for supporting individuals who cannot access other public funds, leading to increased costs for departments such as the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and the Department of Health and Social Care.

Dr. Emma Marshall emphasised the need for a sustainable legal aid system, stating, “Improving the sustainability of legal aid must now be a priority for the Government. We currently have a legal aid system that is neither fair nor fit for purpose, putting a considerable strain on many areas of governance. Reinstating immigration legal aid would help the whole immigration system to function more fairly and efficiently, as well as reducing costs across other parts of government.”

Dr. Jo Hynes of Public Law Project added, “Immigration legal aid is now available to only a fraction of the people who need it. The appalling injustice and harm this causes is well known to anyone working in immigration. This report clearly spells out which data the incoming Government needs to keep track of in order to find out if cuts are costing more money than they saved and to build a fairer and more efficient system.”

The report suggests that the government’s approach to legal aid has been a false economy, pointing out that £320 million has been spent on the controversial Rwanda plan—equivalent to 21 years’ worth of savings from LASPO's reduction in immigration legal aid. This highlights the need for an evidence-based approach to immigration legal aid policy.

The research, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council Impact Acceleration Account via the University of Exeter, provides a clear set of data points that need to be tracked to evaluate the true costs and savings of the 2012 legal aid cuts. By addressing these data gaps, the government can ensure that future legal aid policies are both economically sound and socially just.