*/
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) still does not know whether its £300m cuts to civil legal aid represent “value for money”, according to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC).
The PAC report, Implementing reforms to civil legal aid, was published on 4 February. The MoJ was found to be “on track” with its cost savings, but the PAC roundly criticized the implementation of its reforms and the failure to provide robust evidence of their effects, despite a commitment to do so in its 2012 impact assessment.
“[The MoJ] does not know whether those still eligible to access legal aid are able to do so; and does not understand the link between the price it pays for legal aid and the quality of advice given... the [Legal Aid] Agency’s own quality assurance processes indicated that the quality of face-to-face legal advice is unacceptably low, with almost one in four providers failing to meet the quality threshold,” the report said.
Further, the Ministry had “failed to foresee that removing legal aid funding for solicitors would reduce the number of referrals to family mediation”.
“Perhaps most worryingly of all, it does not understand, and has shown little interest in, the knock-on costs of its reforms across the public sector,” the Committee concluded.
Amongst the many recommendations was that the MoJ should identify the wider costs to the public sector as a part of a full evaluation of the impact of the reforms.
An MoJ spokesperson said: “We are pleased the Committee has acknowledged our reforms have been successful in making the significant savings we had no choice but to find given the financial crisis this Government inherited.”
“[The MoJ] does not know whether those still eligible to access legal aid are able to do so; and does not understand the link between the price it pays for legal aid and the quality of advice given... the [Legal Aid] Agency’s own quality assurance processes indicated that the quality of face-to-face legal advice is unacceptably low, with almost one in four providers failing to meet the quality threshold,” the report said.
Further, the Ministry had “failed to foresee that removing legal aid funding for solicitors would reduce the number of referrals to family mediation”.
“Perhaps most worryingly of all, it does not understand, and has shown little interest in, the knock-on costs of its reforms across the public sector,” the Committee concluded.
Amongst the many recommendations was that the MoJ should identify the wider costs to the public sector as a part of a full evaluation of the impact of the reforms.
An MoJ spokesperson said: “We are pleased the Committee has acknowledged our reforms have been successful in making the significant savings we had no choice but to find given the financial crisis this Government inherited.”
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) still does not know whether its £300m cuts to civil legal aid represent “value for money”, according to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC).
The PAC report, Implementing reforms to civil legal aid, was published on 4 February. The MoJ was found to be “on track” with its cost savings, but the PAC roundly criticized the implementation of its reforms and the failure to provide robust evidence of their effects, despite a commitment to do so in its 2012 impact assessment.
Chair of the Bar reflects on 2025
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
Revolt Cycling in Holborn, London’s first sustainable fitness studio, invites barristers to join the revolution – turning pedal power into clean energy
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
By Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
AlphaBiolabs has made a £500 donation to Sean’s Place, a men’s mental health charity based in Sefton, as part of its ongoing Giving Back initiative
Professor Dominic Regan and Seán Jones KC present their best buys for this holiday season
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
Six months of court observation at the Old Bailey: APPEAL’s Dr Nisha Waller and Tehreem Sultan report their findings on prosecution practices under joint enterprise
Despite its prevalence, autism spectrum disorder remains poorly understood in the criminal justice system. Does Alex Henry’s joint enterprise conviction expose the need to audit prisons? asks Dr Felicity Gerry KC
With automation now deeply embedded in the Department for Work Pensions, Alexander McColl and Alexa Thompson review what we know, what we don’t and avenues for legal challenge
