MoJ: Scheme should not be run from central government, says ATJF
An Interest on Lawyers’ Client Accounts (ILCA) scheme “could create meaningful change” by delivering a justice system that works for more people, the Access to Justice Foundation (ATJF) has argued.
However, if ILCA money went straight to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and was not ringfenced in any way – as is currently proposed – it could lead to “no overall boost” in funding “or even a reduction in public funding for justice”.
The ATJF supported exploring an ILCA scheme as a potential funding source for free legal advice, but any final version “should look very different from the one the MoJ has proposed”.
Responding to the MoJ consultation, it urged the MoJ to wait for the findings of the research on funding the free legal advice sector by Oxford University’s Centre for Socio-Legal Studies.
The ATJF is a partner in the two-year project, which is due to run until April 2027. Professor Linda Mulcahy, who is leading it, told the justice select committee earlier this month that ILCA schemes have “tremendous potential”, but the money needed to go to the legal advice sector and not central government.
The ATJF said: “There is a risk that if the MoJ budget is boosted by ILCA funds that this would lead to a reduction in funds from the Treasury. Ultimately this could lead to no overall boost for justice funding or even a reduction in public funding for justice.
“Public and professional support for such a scheme is likely to be lower if there is no tangible impact on access to justice.”
The ATJF recommended that the MoJ “wait for the evidence” and for the findings of the Oxford research before “making decisions that could have significant unintended consequences”.
The MoJ should “ringfence” ILCA funds for free legal advice and support; most international schemes did not fund “core government services” and instead directed funds “towards improving access to justice”.
Further, the funds should be distributed through an independent charitable foundation – as in most international schemes – and not central government.
This was the most sustainable model, because independent foundations could take a long-term approach “beyond political cycles” and had the specialist expertise “to make grants that deliver measurable impact”.
An ILCA scheme could make “a real difference” to the 11m people who faced legal problems but never received help, the foundation predicted.
“If properly designed, funds could be directed to where they are most needed, delivering the free legal advice that could keep people in their homes, protect them from abuse, or secure the benefits they’re entitled to.”
The Oxford research was “critical to the debate on ILCA schemes in the UK” and “whilst we understand the pressing need for funding, it is crucial to make evidence-based decisions”.
The MoJ consultation document did not “make clear the anticipated level of funding” generated, and with income levels fluctuating as interest rates changed, an ILCA scheme could not be relied on to fund core public services.
“This is less of a problem for independent foundations as they can fund one-off projects and develop additional stabilisation funding to ensure continuity of approach.”
Leave a Comment