*/
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.
The beginning of the legal year offers the opportunity for a renewed commitment to justice and the rule of law both at home and abroad
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management sets out the key steps to your dream property
A centre of excellence for youth justice, the Youth Justice Legal Centre provides specialist training, an advice line and a membership programme
By Kem Kemal of Henry Dannell
By Ashley Friday of AlphaBiolabs
Providing bespoke mortgage and protection solutions for barristers
Joanna Hardy-Susskind speaks to those walking away from the criminal Bar
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)
Yasmin Ilhan explains the Law Commission’s proposals for a quicker, easier and more effective contempt of court regime
Irresponsible use of AI can lead to serious and embarrassing consequences. Sam Thomas briefs barristers on the five key risks and how to avoid them
James Onalaja concludes his two-part opinion series
