Atkinson: Government must revisit our recommendations
The justice select committee is “deeply concerned” about the government’s approach to legal aid, following a “highly disappointing” response to its critique of the system.
MPs said that of the report’s 28 recommendations, “we interpret the government as having either rejected or declined to comment on all of them”.
In a damning 80-page report published in July, the committee described a legal aid system on the verge of collapse.
In a further report today, reacting to the Ministry of Justice’s (MoJ) response, the committee said: “The government has responded to the committee’s recommendations in narrative form.
“It does not indicate which of our recommendations it accepts or rejects and it gives no justification for this approach. This is highly disappointing and an inadequate form of response.
“Our report warned of an unacceptably high risk of miscarriages of justice due to the declining availability of legal aid and rising self-representation. We called on the government to address eligibility, remuneration, provider capacity, administration and scope.
“We cautioned that without urgent reform legal aid will continue to decline as a practical route to justice. In most cases, the government’s response describes existing initiatives, or says that a proposal will be explored at some later point, despite our giving the government an extended time to respond.”
MPs said they were “deeply concerned” that the policy approach outlined by the MoJ would not adequately address the issues it raised.
“We recommended that ministers urgently prioritise restoring legal aid as an effective, sustainable and accessible service for those who need it most. The government’s response confirms to us that legal aid is a service in managed decline.”
The justice committee argued that the “remarkably low financial eligibility threshold for criminal legal aid in the magistrates’ court”, which could leave an adult without children on a full-time minimum wage ineligible for support, should be uprated before the government transferred “more serious” criminal cases from the Crown Court to the magistrates’ courts.
Although it has agreed to increase the thresholds “in principle”, the MoJ refused to do this until after its criminal court reforms had been implemented.
On civil legal aid fees, MPs said the MoJ accepted that the wider market faced challenges but “declines to address fee levels outside the categories [housing and immigration] it has already prioritised”.
The MoJ must also explain how it would address the issues of “recruitment, retention, training, succession planning and regional shortages identified in our report or state why it cannot do so”.
The MoJ ignored the committee’s “central proposition” that the Lord Chancellor had a statutory duty to ensure that legal aid was available and that one way of doing it was for the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) to offer stronger contractual or financial incentives where ordinary procurement failed.
The government “did not engage” with the committee’s recommendation that lawyers should be able to give early legal advice on a range of interconnected problems.
On the LAA, MPs said the MoJ had failed to commit to recommendations on reforming the LAA’s objectives or delegated authority, piloting the high-trust model or consulting on alternative institutional arrangements.
A “recurrent feature” of the government’s response was “acknowledgement of the committee’s evidence and proposals without any commitment to action or inaction”, for example on reviews of legal aid thresholds and fees.
“The government must re-examine the policy recommendations made by our report and provide us with a clearer response which addresses our recommendations more directly, which we expect within the usual timescale.”
In a letter to the committee, courts and legal services minister Sarah Sackman KC said: “My priority has been stabilisation, to fix the foundations of the legal aid system, before setting about reviving it for the long term.
“I am conscious that in our response on some key issues we have indicated that the government is still working to finalise our position. For example, the government will provide an update on our plans for legal aid eligibility reform as soon as is practical.
“I appreciate that in places our response may not go as far as the committee would like to see, but the work of improving the legal aid system is a long-term commitment, and implementation takes time.”
Labour MP Catherine Atkinson, chair of the justice committee, said: “Far too many people are being denied the legal advice and representation they urgently need. Our report laid bare the scale of the barriers they face…
“A legal aid system cannot be sustained by monitoring its decline and promising to explore solutions later. The government must revisit our recommendations and outline what action it will take.”
Brett Dixon, president of the Law Society, commented: “The justice committee’s report makes a compelling case for accessible legal aid, yet the UK government has failed to engage in good faith with its recommendations.
“We are pleased to see the committee recognise the government’s inadequate response, particularly around court reforms and investment in civil legal aid that covers family, housing and other everyday cases that affect people’s lives.”
Leave a Comment