*/
The Government has failed to target legal aid to those who need it most, a Justice Committee inquiry into the impact of the civil legal aid reforms has concluded.
The final report of the cross-party committee of MPs, Impact of changes to civil legal aid under Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, found that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) had failed to achieve three out of its four stated objectives for the reforms.
Whilst the Government had achieved its aim of substantially reducing the civil legal aid budget, access to justice had been harmed, unnecessary litigation at public expense had not been discouraged, and better value for the taxpayer not shown.
Announcing the conclusions, Committee Chair, Sir Alan Beith MP, acknowledged that making £2bn of savings from a budget of £9.8bn was clearly a “challenging target”.
“But this has limited access to justice for some of those who need legal aid the most and in some instances has failed to prevent cases becoming more serious and creating further claims on the legal aid budget.
“Many of the problems which we have identified could have been avoided with better research, a better evidence base to work from, and better public information about the reforms.
“It is vitally important that the MoJ works to remedy this from now on,” he warned.
The report identified a “significant underspend” in the civil legal aid budget since the reforms and “wrongful refusal of exceptional case funding applications [that] may have resulted in miscarriages of justice”.
“All agencies involved must closely examine their actions and take immediate steps to ensure the exceptional cases funding scheme is the robust safety net envisaged by Parliament,” it concluded.
Responding to the report, Alistair MacDonald QC, Chairman of the Bar said that the findings “came as no surprise” to any professional giving legal advice to vulnerable people; and that recent reports by the Public Accounts Committee and National Audit Office had come to much the same conclusions. “We need a commitment from all parties to approach justice differently,” he said.
Whilst the Government had achieved its aim of substantially reducing the civil legal aid budget, access to justice had been harmed, unnecessary litigation at public expense had not been discouraged, and better value for the taxpayer not shown.
Announcing the conclusions, Committee Chair, Sir Alan Beith MP, acknowledged that making £2bn of savings from a budget of £9.8bn was clearly a “challenging target”.
“But this has limited access to justice for some of those who need legal aid the most and in some instances has failed to prevent cases becoming more serious and creating further claims on the legal aid budget.
“Many of the problems which we have identified could have been avoided with better research, a better evidence base to work from, and better public information about the reforms.
“It is vitally important that the MoJ works to remedy this from now on,” he warned.
The report identified a “significant underspend” in the civil legal aid budget since the reforms and “wrongful refusal of exceptional case funding applications [that] may have resulted in miscarriages of justice”.
“All agencies involved must closely examine their actions and take immediate steps to ensure the exceptional cases funding scheme is the robust safety net envisaged by Parliament,” it concluded.
Responding to the report, Alistair MacDonald QC, Chairman of the Bar said that the findings “came as no surprise” to any professional giving legal advice to vulnerable people; and that recent reports by the Public Accounts Committee and National Audit Office had come to much the same conclusions. “We need a commitment from all parties to approach justice differently,” he said.
The Government has failed to target legal aid to those who need it most, a Justice Committee inquiry into the impact of the civil legal aid reforms has concluded.
The final report of the cross-party committee of MPs, Impact of changes to civil legal aid under Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, found that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) had failed to achieve three out of its four stated objectives for the reforms.
Our call for sufficient resources for the justice system and for the Bar to scrutinise the BSB’s latest consultation
Marie Law, Head of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, discusses alcohol testing for the Family Court
Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth explains how to make sure you are investing suitably, and in your long-term interests
In conversation with Matthew Bland, Lincoln’s Inn Library
Millicent Wild of 5 Essex Chambers describes her pupillage experience
Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth explores some key steps to take when starting out as a barrister in order to secure your financial future
From a traumatic formative education to exceptional criminal silk – Laurie-Anne Power KC talks about her path to the Bar, pursuit of equality and speaking out against discrimination (not just during Black History Month)
James Onalaja concludes his two-part opinion series
Expectations, experiences and survival tips – some of the things I wished I had known (or applied) when I was starting pupillage. By Chelsea Brooke-Ward
If you are in/about to start pupillage, you will soon be facing the pupillage stage assessment in professional ethics. Jane Hutton and Patrick Ryan outline exam format and tactics
In a two-part opinion series, James Onalaja considers the International Criminal Court Prosecutor’s requests for arrest warrants in the controversial Israel-Palestine situation