Government has short-changed the public on legal aid cuts

The National Audit Office (NAO) has slammed the government's legal aid cuts for being out of touch with the public's needs and failing to realise what costs may arise as a consequence.

The report also said it was not clear to what extent the government had reduced unnecessary litigation and targeted legal aid at those who need it most, two of the main objectives of the cuts alongside reducing expenditure on legal aid.

Critics of the government's legal aid cuts were quick to comment: the shadow secretary of state for justice, Sadiq Khan MP, described it as a "damning report" that "exposed David Cameron's reckless assault on access to justice for what it really was - bad value for money and leaving hundreds of thousands without proper
legal advice."

The report accused the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) of not thinking through at an early stage the impact of the cuts on the wider system. Amyas Morse, head of the NAO, said the government was on track to make its significant and quick reductions on legal aid expenditure.

"However, [the government] has been slower to think through how and why people access civil legal aid," he added.

Family law failures

The report highlighted family
law as an area where efficient, cost-effective and helpful measures, such as mediation, had not been taken following the cuts, resulting in more litigants in person at an extra cost to the public purse.

The ministry anticipated that removing legal aid funding for private family law matters would divert people away from the courts and increase mediation referrals by 9,000 per year. However, there was a 56 per cent decrease in the number of mediation assessments from 2012 to 2013.

Khan said Labour had warned that denying people legal aid in
a rushed manner would merely
see costs rise in other areas, "but sadly the government failed to listen."

He continued: "[The government] claimed they would, instead, divert people into mediation, but these figures reveal there have been 17,246 fewer mediation assessments in the last period. On every measure, David Cameron's government have completely failed on legal aid."

In the year following LASPO, there was a reported 30 per cent increase in the number of family court cases in which neither party had legal representation.

"This is likely to create extra costs for the Ministry and wider government, with the NAO estimating additional cost to HM Courts & Tribunals Service of at least £3m a year, together with direct costs to the Ministry of approximately £400,000," the report stated.

It added: "There may also be costs to the wider public sector if people whose problems could have been resolved by legal aid-funded advice suffer adverse consequences to their health and wellbeing as a result of no longer having access to legal aid."

Gimhani Eriyagolla, committee member of the Young Legal Aid Lawyers and trainee at Bhatt Murphy, said that although the report focused on the impact on family law, the problems faced in the family courts were echoed throughout the legal aid system.

"Before the implementation of LASPO, campaigners sought to show that in the long term the cuts would cost more in public spending than they were likely to save. It is important that this message has been reinforced by the NAO," she said.

Eriyagolla added that although the wider financial impact on other public services, such as the NHS, had not yet been realised, the NAO were right to draw attention to the multi-sector impact caused by the cuts.

'Damning' statistics

As part of its report, the NAO also analysed the amount of legal aid funded, face-to-face advice being actioned by providers in local authority areas across England and Wales. It found that providers in 14 local authorities had not started any face-to-face, legal aid funded work during 2013 to 2014. The Legal Aid Agency said it was unable to find the reasons why the work was not being carried out, and therefore could not be confident that those
who need legal aid are able to obtain it.

Kevin Poulter, editor at large
of Solicitors Journal and senior associate in employment law
at Bircham Dyson Bell, said
that the 'damning' statistics produced by the NAO had come all too late, and that the cuts had come at a greater cost to society than was ever considered possible.

Poulter added: "It now seems unlikely that any party will seek to reverse the cuts that have already been made or to reinvest in providing legal support and direct access to justice for those who need it most. The speed with which the cuts were made suggests that no time was set aside to evaluate the wider implications on the public purse."

False economy

Richard Miller, head of legal aid at the Law Society, said LASPO had resulted in severe consequences for access to justice, with the greatest impact affecting the poorest and most vulnerable parts of society.

"Without lawyers to resolve disputes less contentiously, more couples end up fighting in court, to their own detriment and that of the children of the families concerned. The experience of the past year has proved that removing lawyers from the process is a false economy," Miller said.

The head of the NAO, Morse, concluded that the government had not considered the scale of the additional costs to the Ministry likely to be generated by people choosing to represent themselves and
the impact on the ability and willingness of providers to provide legal services for the fees paid.

"Without this understanding, the Ministry's implementation of the reforms to civil legal aid cannot be said to have delivered better overall value for money for the taxpayer," he added. SJ

Laura Clenshaw is managing editor of Solicitors Journal

laura.clenshaw@solicitorsjournal.co.uk

---