Legal aid cuts spark fears of a justice gap

The chief executive of the county's Citizen's Advice Bureau and officials from some of Shropshire's top legal firms have lifted the lid on the emerging problems being caused by the Government changes, which came into force this April.

The changes, designed to save £320 million per year, mean cases involving issues such as child contact, welfare benefit and housing law are no longer eligible for public funds.

Jackie Jeffrey, chief executive of Citizens Advice Shropshire, said: "These legal aid cuts will create a justice gap between those who can afford to pay for legal advice and those who can't, with the poor unable to challenge refusal of benefits, dismissal at work or sort out unmanageable debt."

• Star comment: Fair playing field within legal system

Concerns about the changes have also been raised by Natalie Pugh, from Telford-based NJP Solicitors.

"The main impact we have seen is the impact upon potential clients - fathers not getting contact with children due to no representation for example," she said.

"Overall the changes have been extremely detrimental to the layperson requiring legal services. It's not been as simple as people just representing themselves. It's a world they are not familiar with and it's intimidating."

Stephen Wood, practice and finance manager at Parry Carver Solicitors, which has offices in Wellington and Shifnal, said the changes are placing a "burden" on court services.

"There will be a burden put on the court services where clients will be unrepresented at hearings and will not have the support of a professional legal representative who would have the ability and knowledge to get the best result for the client," he said.

"Some clients will not be able to afford representation fees for advice. This will have both an adverse effect on maintaining the current family personnel status within solicitors' practices as well as to the detriment of the unrepresented client."

Justice Secretary Chris Grayling said: "I am clear we will continue to uphold everyone's right to a fair trial but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look again at how the system which provides this is operated."