*/
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 Sam Townend KC highlights some of the key achievements at the Bar Council this year
Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management highlights some of the ways you can cut your IHT bill
Rachel Davenport breaks down everything you need to know about AlphaBiolabs’ industry-leading laboratory testing services for legal matters
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
Mark Neale, Director General of the Bar Standards Board, offers an update on the Equality Rules consultation
Joanna Hardy-Susskind speaks to those walking away from the criminal Bar
Imposing a professional obligation to act in a way that advances equality, diversity and inclusion is the wrong way to achieve this ambition, says Nick Vineall KC
Tom Cosgrove KC looks at the government’s radical planning reform and the opportunities and challenges ahead for practitioners
By Ashley Friday of AlphaBiolabs
