*/
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.
Now is the time to tackle inappropriate behaviour at the Bar as well as extend our reach and collaboration with organisations and individuals at home and abroad
A comparison – Dan Monaghan, Head of DWF Chambers, invites two viewpoints
And if not, why not? asks Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Head of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, discusses the many benefits of oral fluid drug testing for child welfare and protection matters
To mark International Women’s Day, Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management looks at how financial planning can help bridge the gap
Casey Randall of AlphaBiolabs answers some of the most common questions regarding relationship DNA testing for court
