MPs raise concerns about legal aid reforms
A group of MPs have raised serious concerns about the practicality of the Government’s proposed reforms to the criminal legal aid system.
In May the Government published a draft bill on cutting down the enormous legal aid bill, which included proposals such as reintroducing means testing into legal aid and giving the Legal Services Commission responsibility for determining eligibility for legal aid.
Expenditure on legal aid has risen by about £500 million since 1997/98, increasing to over £2 billion in 2003/04. It accounts for almost two-thirds of the Department for Constitutional Affairs’ entire budget and over half of the money is spent on criminal legal aid.
The Constitutional Affairs Committee said today that they support the underlying aim of controlling the rising cost of criminal legal aid, and some form of means testing, but argue that many detailed questions need to be answered before the proposals can be finalised.
It notes that legal aid “protects against unfair trials” and “inequality of arms” between the defendant and the prosecution and makes it easier to protect defendants’ rights.
“Measures designed to reduce expenditure on criminal legal aid must not interfere with the ability of legal aid to satisfy these fundamental objectives; doing so could breach the UK’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.” If breached this could lead to expensive legal challenges.
The MPs call on the Department for Constitutional Affairs to ensure that any bill is human rights compliant and that a fair system is set up for assessing eligibility for legal aid, including a “satisfactory and expeditious” right of appeal against decisions.
There is a “substantial risk” that means testing would cause delays, both because of the administrative process and the rise in the number of unrepresented defendants, and the committee warns that this would run counter to initiatives to speed up the courts process.
The Committee calls on the Government to factor this into its costing of whether introducing means testing would actually lead to a net saving, suggesting that the plans are not properly costed.
It recommends that a large number of savings could be achieved in the most expensive criminal cases and more effective case management, which might offer an alternative way of reducing the legal aid budget.
Citizens Advice welcomed the report, arguing that proposed restrictions to legal aid will have a negative effect on those in need. Policy director Teresa Perchard, said: “More and more people will be refused legal aid. And, for many people, no legal aid simply means ‘no justice’ and no help when faced with the trauma of eviction, domestic violence or bailiff warrants.
“Whilst we accept the principle of introducing a means test for criminal legal aid, these proposals go too far. More defendants will be unrepresented and would approach Citizens Advice Bureaux, Law Centres and other voluntary agencies for advice which they are not equipped to provide.
“We see some merit in proposals for fixed fees for civil work, but unless these are set at a reasonable level, and accompanied by a significant reduction of bureaucracy, more legal aid suppliers will leave, increasing the problem of ‘advice desserts’.”
