Committee endorses Society concerns over legal aid

30 March 2011

The Law Society today welcomed the conclusion of the Justice Select Committee that the Government's proposals for cutting the legal aid budget need "considerable further refinement" (1), and that the Ministry should assess the merits of the alternative cost-saving proposals put forward by the Law Society.

In its report, the Committee is strongly critical of the lack of information in numerous areas, including:

Key drivers on costs (2), how cases will be resolved if mediation does not work (3), the impact on other public budgets (4) and the geographical impact on services to the public (5).

It urges the Government to address these gaps before proceeding with its proposals.

The Committee accepts the need for the legal aid budget to contribute its fair share to the savings required in public expenditure. However, like the Law Society, it believes there are better ways to make those savings. The Committee has given strong support to the Society's argument that public bodies should be penalised when they defend wrong decisions, saying:

"We think that in rejecting this idea as a 'robbing Peter to pay Paul' transfer of funds around the public purse, the Minister is overlooking the potential benefit such a policy would have in providing a financial incentive to public authorities to get their decisions right first time." (6)

The Society also welcomes the Committee's support for our alternative suggestions:

"…we recommend that the Government assesses the merits of the cost-saving proposals put forward by the Law Society… we hope that the Government will now turn its mind to addressing some of the long-term cost drivers of legal aid, not least with a view to reducing the extent of some of the limitations to scope proposed in the consultation paper." (7)

We also agree with the Committee when it points out that the knock on costs of these cuts is as yet unknown:

"…It has been put to us that the removal from scope of many areas of social welfare law will lead to significant costs to the public purse as a result of increased burdens on, for example, health and housing services. We are surprised that the Government is proposing to make such changes without assessing their likely impact on spending from the public purse and we call on them to do so before taking a final decision on implementation." (8)

Law Society President Linda Lee said, "This report, coming as it does from an independent, cross-party source, is a valuable addition to wide range of voices expressing concern about the way this Government is proposing to make savings from the legal aid budget.

"The Committee shares our grave concerns about the lack of hard data underpinning the proposals and the lack of reliable forecasting of the potentially devastating effects.

"The Society was troubled by the committee's conclusions in a number of areas. For example, the recommendation on education disputes could, if implemented, mean that ordinary citizens will be powerless to confront local authorities who fail to follow the law.

"If the Government will not provide remedy to secure rights denied, why bother with the right at all?

"We warmly welcome the Committee's support for the Society's proposed alternative savings and for other measures we have put forward to try and tackle the drivers of legal aid costs at source.
"We now urge the Government to heed the Committee's concerns and to think again about how to meet the Treasury's tough demands."

The House of Commons Justice Committee

Third Report of Session 2010–11 - Access to Justice: Government's proposed reform of Legal Aid, Volume I[1] Para 174[2] Para 30[3] Para 98[4] Para 136[5] Para 156[6] Para 60[7] Para 63[8] Para 136

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/justice-committee/news/legal-aid-report/

---

Press releases, papers and documents published on this page are the intellectual property of an organisation unrelated to ePolitix.com. We promote their parliamentary and political campaigning activities as they are subscribers to the ePolitix.com service.

As such, ePolitix.com does not edit, endorse, or attempt to balance the opinions expressed on this page. The content of press releases and other such types of content are the responsibility of the originating organisation.