JUSTICE Secretary and Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling is a national joke. He has lost several court cases concerning legal aid cuts and his heartless ban on books for prisoners was ruled unlawful.

He has antagonised the entire legal community and admitted to misleading the House of Commons about proposals to cut down the scope of judicial review.

One senior judge complained about Grayling’s right-wing soundbites to the Daily Mail, saying he was “unrestrained by any courtesy to his opponents, or even by that customary caution to be expected while the court considers its judgement, and unmindful of the independent advocate’s appreciation that it is usually more persuasive to attempt to kick the ball than your opponent’s shins.”

Some lawyers argue that Grayling’s contempt for the rule of law and access to justice is because he is not a lawyer.

Indeed, he is the first non-lawyer to hold the office of Lord Chancellor in over 400 years.

But you don’t need to be a lawyer to believe in the rule of law, access to justice or human rights. Conversely, Tony Blair and Jack Straw — both lawyers — proposed removing access to judicial review from asylum-seekers.

Grayling’s vicious assaults on access to justice stem from his hard right-wing Tory ideology.

Half the cuts to legal aid were initiated by his predecessor Ken Clarke, a lawyer. Clarke airily dismissed objections to those cuts, arguing that litigants would be safe and that the only people affected were lawyers.

The removal of legal aid for family, immigration and many areas of social welfare law was part of the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Laspo).

At the time, campaigners argued that the proposed cuts had not been thought through.

We said that the numbers of litigants in person would rise, court cases would be delayed and justice might be denied.

We said that the cuts were a false economy — for every £1 spent on funding early advice and legal representation, up to £8.80 could be saved by avoiding the knock-on effect on other public services.

And we said that the number of legal aid providers — law centres, advice agencies and solicitors’ firms — would fall so that it would become virtually impossible to find a legal aid lawyer.

The government disagreed. It said there were no figures showing that court cases involving litigants in person lasted longer (and so were more expensive).

There would be fewer family law cases in the courts, because more people would use mediation services.

Individuals representing themselves in employment, immigration or welfare benefit tribunals would be fine without any legal advice.

In areas of law where legal aid was removed, “exceptional funding” would be available for difficult cases, or for individuals who clearly had difficulty in representing themselves.

These Laspo cuts came into effect in April 2013. Three different organisations the National Audit Office, House of Commons justice committee and the Low Commission, have recently scrutinised their impact and concluded that reality is even worse than we campaigners had predicted.

There has been a 30 per cent increase in the number of family cases where both parties represented themselves.
This can result in court delays and judges report worrying about the risk that the main point might have been missed.

There has been a more than 50 per cent decline in the use of family mediation. As the justice committee notes, solicitors encourage their clients to mediate.

Without legal representation, separating couples are more likely to turn to the courts than to mediation.

There is real concern about the false economy of cutting legal aid. The increase in people representing themselves certainly costs court resources. Removing legal advice for debt or welfare benefits issues means that problems cannot be resolved inexpensively, early on.

Instead, financial problems escalate until tenants are faced with possession proceedings, when much more expensive legal representation does become available.

Worry about debt, benefits, rent arrears or immigration issues can cause serious health problems and cost the public purse.

There are fewer lawyers and advice agencies taking on legal aid work. This is not because lawyers have suddenly become greedy — I meet law students every year who want to do legal aid work. It’s because the rates paid are simply too low to meet overheads.

The National Audit Office reports that there are 14 local authority areas where no new legal aid work was being carried out at all in the last year and nationally many providers are struggling to provide legal aid services. Legal aid lawyers are a dying breed.

Finally, the government’s claim to offer “exceptional funding” is an illusion. Only 5 per cent of applications were granted the funds — barely a safety net. The Court of Appeal has ruled that the criteria are set too high and are unlawful.

Overall, removing legal aid from most areas of social welfare law has proved an expensive mistake. The reports agree that the cuts harmed access to justice for some litigants, that it cannot be shown that they represented value for money — given the knock-on effect on other public resources — and that the remaining areas of legal aid do not seem to be targeted at those who need it most.

It might be thought that the value-for-money argument would lead the Labour Party, if not the two coalition parties, to invest in legal aid. Unfortunately, Labour’s proposals are marginal. If it wins power, specific cuts to legal aid in judicial review will be reversed and the type of evidence required to prove domestic violence — which entitles parties in family cases to legal aid — will be broadened.

The Tories, if re-elected, will make further cuts to criminal legal aid — in which case expect to see more protesting lawyers on the streets. These are miserable times for the service that was the fourth pillar of the welfare state.

• Liz Davies is a barrister specialising in housing and homelessness law. More information on saving legal aid is at justiceallianceuk.wordpress.com.