counsel_logo
Subscribe Advertise
×
LEGAL PERSONALITY PRACTICE TOOLSET JUSTICE MATTERS BON VIVANT CURRENT ISSUE BAR STUDENTS
Jobs & Career Hub View All Jobs Career Clinic Strategic Moves Partners Training Courses Training Course Providers
} Subscribe Advertise
  • LEGAL PERSONALITY
  • PRACTICE TOOLSET
  • JUSTICE MATTERS
  • BON VIVANT
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • BAR STUDENTS
  • Jobs & Career Hub
    • View All Jobs
    • Career Clinic
    • Strategic Moves
    • Partners
    • Training Courses
    • Training Course Providers
  1. Home
  2. News
  3. NAO identifies significant weaknesses in legal aid administration

NAO identifies significant weaknesses in legal aid administration

31 January 2010
Categories: News
Printer Email

THE Bar Council has welcomed the report on the procurement of criminal legal aid in England and Wales, which has been published by the National Audit Office (NAO). The NAO’s report examines the procurement of criminal legal aid by the Legal Services Commission (LSC), the body responsible for the distribution of the legal aid budget within England and Wales. 

The NAO’s report paints a picture of a chaotic, cuts-driven ‘reform’ programme being rolled out by the LSC, which threatens value for money and the provision of an essential public service. It warns of “confusion and duplication in the oversight of criminal legal aid”. 

The LSC is condemned for not understanding the market and for using “inaccurate and incomplete” data. The spending watchdog concludes that no further reforms to legal aid should proceed without having been properly piloted using guidance from the Office of Government Commerce. 

The report, which was considered by the House of Commons’ Public Accounts Committee in December, goes on to consider the cost drivers which affect legal aid and the LSC, saying that: 

“The cost of criminal legal aid provision is driven by a number of factors, including the complexities of the criminal justice system, and the level of crime, both of which are beyond the control of the Commission”. 

This is followed by concern on the part of the NAO that the LSC does not understand the market in which it operates, saying: “At present, gaps in the Commission’s knowledge about its supplier base prevent it from making the most of this position. In particular, we consider that the Commission has not marshalled the knowledge of its local managers well enough to develop a good understanding of the market for criminal legal aid, such as the cost structures of different types of firms and their profit margins”. Commenting on the report, the Chairman of the Bar, Nick Green QC, said: 

“The NAO has blown the whistle on the LSC’s cuts-driven, chaotic ‘reform’ programme, which must now be stopped so that any current proposals can be properly evaluated. Today’s report is a sad indictment of the state of the LSC and reflects the Bar Council’s concerns about the administration of legal aid. The LSC’s ‘reforms’ are disorganised and have not been evaluated. They threaten this fundamental service. When an NAO report states that ‘the Commission does not currently hold enough information centrally about its suppliers to be an intelligent commissioner’, it is time to rethink the way in which the Ministry of Justice and the LSC together run legal aid policy. These criticisms reinforce those set out by the Justice Committee in their July 2009 report on the LSC's consultation on family legal aid, where they noted the LSC's lack of an evidence base for their policies and called for the LSC to implement a fundamental shift in attitude toward such consultations. The Bar Council has always said that the justice system must serve those going through it. We support the NAO’s recommendation that all reforms to the legal aid system should be piloted using guidance from the Office of Government Commerce, in order to reduce the risk of irreversible and damaging cuts to the legal aid budget with little or no empirical evidence. We look forward to assisting the Public Accounts Committee with its recommendations to Parliament following the publication of this report.” 

Paul Mendelle QC, Chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, welcomed the NAO report, saying: 

“This report confirms what the Criminal Bar Association has told the Government time and again: that cuts to legal aid are unjustified and unprincipled, as legal aid expenditure is controlled and falling in real terms. The drivers of legal aid expenditure are the government’s own policies, not the actions of barristers. It also highlights that it is the LSC’s lack of data that has been the road block on the road to reform of the system for paying for Very High Cost Cases. The Government must rethink its policies otherwise it will do real and lasting damage to our criminal justice system.” 

Tags: Legal Aid , Legislation
Printer Email
Home > News > NAO identifies significant weaknesses in legal aid administration

NAO identifies significant weaknesses in legal aid administration

Date: 31 January 2010

THE Bar Council has welcomed the report on the procurement of criminal legal aid in England and Wales, which has been published by the National Audit Office (NAO). The NAO’s report examines the procurement of criminal legal aid by the Legal Services Commission (LSC), the body responsible for the distribution of the legal aid budget within England and Wales.

The NAO’s report paints a picture of a chaotic, cuts-driven ‘reform’ programme being rolled out by the LSC, which threatens value for money and the provision of an essential public service. It warns of “confusion and duplication in the oversight of criminal legal aid”.

The LSC is condemned for not understanding the market and for using “inaccurate and incomplete” data. The spending watchdog concludes that no further reforms to legal aid should proceed without having been properly piloted using guidance from the Office of Government Commerce.

The report, which was considered by the House of Commons’ Public Accounts Committee in December, goes on to consider the cost drivers which affect legal aid and the LSC, saying that:

“The cost of criminal legal aid provision is driven by a number of factors, including the complexities of the criminal justice system, and the level of crime, both of which are beyond the control of the Commission”.

This is followed by concern on the part of the NAO that the LSC does not understand the market in which it operates, saying: “At present, gaps in the Commission’s knowledge about its supplier base prevent it from making the most of this position. In particular, we consider that the Commission has not marshalled the knowledge of its local managers well enough to develop a good understanding of the market for criminal legal aid, such as the cost structures of different types of firms and their profit margins”. Commenting on the report, the Chairman of the Bar, Nick Green QC, said:

“The NAO has blown the whistle on the LSC’s cuts-driven, chaotic ‘reform’ programme, which must now be stopped so that any current proposals can be properly evaluated. Today’s report is a sad indictment of the state of the LSC and reflects the Bar Council’s concerns about the administration of legal aid. The LSC’s ‘reforms’ are disorganised and have not been evaluated. They threaten this fundamental service. When an NAO report states that ‘the Commission does not currently hold enough information centrally about its suppliers to be an intelligent commissioner’, it is time to rethink the way in which the Ministry of Justice and the LSC together run legal aid policy. These criticisms reinforce those set out by the Justice Committee in their July 2009 report on the LSC's consultation on family legal aid, where they noted the LSC's lack of an evidence base for their policies and called for the LSC to implement a fundamental shift in attitude toward such consultations. The Bar Council has always said that the justice system must serve those going through it. We support the NAO’s recommendation that all reforms to the legal aid system should be piloted using guidance from the Office of Government Commerce, in order to reduce the risk of irreversible and damaging cuts to the legal aid budget with little or no empirical evidence. We look forward to assisting the Public Accounts Committee with its recommendations to Parliament following the publication of this report.”

Paul Mendelle QC, Chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, welcomed the NAO report, saying:

“This report confirms what the Criminal Bar Association has told the Government time and again: that cuts to legal aid are unjustified and unprincipled, as legal aid expenditure is controlled and falling in real terms. The drivers of legal aid expenditure are the government’s own policies, not the actions of barristers. It also highlights that it is the LSC’s lack of data that has been the road block on the road to reform of the system for paying for Very High Cost Cases. The Government must rethink its policies otherwise it will do real and lasting damage to our criminal justice system.”

Category: 
News [1]

Tags: 
Legal Aid [2]
Legislation [3]

*/


SourceURL:

Links:
Subscribe Advertise

Job of the Week

View All Jobs
Barristers and Solicitor Advocates

Barristers and Solicitor Advocates

Liverpool and Manchester

Due to multiple client panel appointments, Barristers and Solicitor Advocates are needed to join our team in Liverpool and Manchester.

virtual magazine View virtual issue
Bar Student Guide 2025Bar Student Guide 2025

Chair’s Column

Read All
Feature image

What a year

Chair of the Bar reflects on 2025

View silk issueView silk issue
Bar Student Guide 2024Bar Student Guide 2024
View bar student guide 2023View student guide 2023
AI special issueAI special issue

Sponsored

Read All

AlphaBiolabs supports The Christie Charity with £500 Giving Back donation

AlphaBiolabs has donated £500 to The Christie Charity through its Giving Back initiative, helping to support cancer care, treatment and research across Greater Manchester, Cheshire and further afield

Moving on up

Q&A with criminal barrister Nick Murphy, who moved to New Park Court Chambers on the North Eastern Circuit in search of a better work-life balance

Sweat it out, light it up

Revolt Cycling in Holborn, London’s first sustainable fitness studio, invites barristers to join the revolution – turning pedal power into clean energy

Drug, Alcohol & DNA testing that gives back

Rachel Davenport, Co-founder and Director at AlphaBiolabs, reflects on how the company’s Giving Back ethos continues to make a difference to communities across the UK

Hair testing in children: Scientific precision in safeguarding

By Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs

Most Viewed

Making Tax Digital – for barristers (1)

Are you ready for the new way to do tax returns? David Southern KC explains the biggest change since HMRC launched self-assessment more than 30 years ago... and its impact on the Bar

Christmas wine 2025

Professor Dominic Regan and Seán Jones KC present their best buys for this holiday season

‘I see the law through a critical lens’: Dr Charlotte Proudman

Marking one year since a Bar disciplinary tribunal dismissed all charges against her, Dr Charlotte Proudman discusses the experience, her formative years and next steps. Interview by Anthony Inglese CB

Cohabitation reform long overdue

Little has changed since Burns v Burns . Cohabiting couples deserve better than to be left on the blasted heath with the existing witch’s brew for another four decades, argues Christopher Stirling

Radical Harmony: Helene Kröller-Müller’s Neo-Impressionists

Pointillism, radical politics and social conscience. Review by Stephen Cragg KC

Partner Logo

Latest Cases

Read All
Hinrichs and others v Oracle Corporation UK Ltd Pricewatch Ltd v Gausden (East Sussex Fire and Rescue Services) Pricewatch Ltd v Gausden (East Sussex Fire and Rescue Services) Lessees and Management Company of Herons Court v Heronslea Ltd and others R (on the application of Lasham Gliding Society Ltd) v Civil Aviation Authority
footer logo
Lexis House, 30 Farringdon Street, London EC4A 4HH.
CONTACT US
0330 161 1234
GET IN TOUCH
  • Worldwide: United Kingdom
    • Argentina
    • Australia
    • Austria
    • Belgium
    • Canada
    • Chile
    • China
    • Columbia
    • Denmark
    • Finland
    • France
    • Germany
    • Greece
    • Hong Kong
    • India
    • International Sales(Includes Middle East)
    • Israel
    • Italy
    • Japan
    • Korea
    • Latin America and the Caribbean
    • Luxembourg
    • Malaysia
    • Mexico
    • Netherlands
    • New Zealand
    • Norway
    • Philippines
    • Singapore
    • South Africa
    • Spain
    • Sweden
    • Switzerland
    • Taiwan
    • Turkey
    • United States
QUICK LINKS
Jobs and Career Hub
Directory
Current Issue
Features
Editorial Board
About us
Write for us
Bar Council
Wellbeing at the Bar
Bar Representation Fee
Bar Standards Board
PARTNER SITES
New Law Journal
Tolley
LexisNexis
Tax Journal
Taxation
POLICIES
Data Protection
Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Subscribe
Advertise with us
Protecting human rights: Our Modern Slavery Act Statement
Copyright © 2026 Bar Council LexisNexis