(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberThe Government are proposing to remove legal aid for all asylum support law cases, while retaining it for other asylum matters. Why is the Minister drawing that distinction, when the vulnerabilities involved are surely the same?
The fundamental principle that we are following is that when security or liberty is at risk, legal aid should be provided. That is why we propose to maintain legal aid for asylum cases, but not for asylum support.
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons Chamber8. What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the likely effect on the expenditure of other Departments of his proposed changes to expenditure on legal aid.
I have had discussions with a number of ministerial colleagues. Those discussions have covered a range of matters affecting our respective Departments, including the potential impact that our proposals to reform legal aid could have on those colleagues’ Departments.
I thank the Minister for his reply, but may I push him a bit further on the longer-term costs to the public purse of withdrawing legal aid for all education matters? Obviously, that includes school exclusions. Given that the link between exclusions and offending is well documented, is it not a false economy to cut legal aid for that type of case?
The way in which the impact will take shape in each Department—the hon. Lady mentioned education—is complicated because it involves determining whether our proposals will lead to behavioural change. We intend that that should be the case and that alternatives to court and taxpayer-funded remedies should be used to resolve disputes when at all possible.