"Joined-up Government"
41. The external drivers of the CDS budget cited
above are outside the control of the Department for Constitutional
Affairs and the Legal Services Commission. This was highlighted
by the LSC in its 2002/03 Annual Report:
"Other criminal justice agencies continue to
make significant changes to law and procedure, the impact of which
on CDS expenditure is not taken into account when proposals are
developed and costed."[48]
In oral evidence to us, the previous Lord Chancellor
acknowledged that this difficulty also exists at a Departmental
level. When asked about his Department's overspend on legal aid
and whether this was due to initiatives by other parts of government,
the former Lord Chancellor told us that:
"It is absolutely critical when changes to the
substantive law are being made, particularly in the criminal field,
which have downstream consequences for the courts, that the thing
should be looked at end to end and the downstream consequences
should be funded and that is a position that I have consistently
maintained
One of the problems is that criminal legal aid
is demand-led. It is therefore, inherently difficult to predict
and in times past we have had underspends and this time we had
an overspend, but because something is inherently difficult to
predict because it is demand-led, you cannot look for perfection
in budgeting, but you must do as best you can and I agree with
you that it is absolutely critical that changes are not made to
the substantive law unless also you take on board the downstream
consequences for the courts and fund that."[49]
42. A number of our witnesses have commented that
the impact of government policies on the criminal legal aid budget
is not taken into account. Rodney Warren of the Law Society gave
us two examples of initiatives which would have an impact on the
CDS budget, but in which this impact had not been accounted for:
(A) the Community Justice Court Pilot, which is being run in North
Liverpool; and (B) "Operation Payback", a scheme to
chase fine defaulters.[50]
43. A number of witnesses also commented that the
impact on other departments of changes to the availability of
legal aid should be taken into account. Stephen Irwin QC of the
Bar Council also told us:
"We have seen it again and again in the public
funding of legal aid that you only look at this little segment
of the budget. Before we make any changes we should be looking
at Group 4, the prisons, the Home Office, the probation service,
the cost of adjournmentsall of it together."[51]
The Law Society also wrote that "the Government
must recognise that criminal legal aid is an integral part of
the criminal justice budget as a whole. It cannot be tackled in
isolation from other aspects of the Criminal Justice System."[52]
44. This was echoed in the information we received
during our civil legal aid inquiry. In particular, the Matrix
Review of the Community Legal Service noted that there is a need
for the DCA to:
"
undertake more robust legislative impact
analysis and seek an undertaking either from the Treasury or other
government departments that the DCA's budget will increase by
the amount necessary to meet increased demand due to new legislation."[53]
In our recently published report on civil legal aid,
we concluded that:
"It is vital for the Government to ensure that
part of the cost calculation of policy initiatives includes an
assessment of the impact on the legal aid budget and that there
is adequate liaison between the Constitutional Affairs Department
and departments such as the Home Office which legislate in relevant
areas. This is a key recommendation; we expect the Government
to be able to demonstrate that it has significantly improved its
system for ensuring that legislative changes proposed by departments
are costed to take into account the full impact on the legal aid
budget."[54]
45. When we asked about steps which had been taken
towards achieving a more joined-up approach to criminal legal
aid, Clare Dodgson told us that "we are working much more
closely with the Treasury and with the Home Office, and when we
did our spending review for 2004 we had colleagues from the Home
Office and the Treasury who worked with us on that to get a much
more joined up picture."[55]
46. We recommend that the Department should ensure
that initiatives rolled out by other Departments, especially the
Home Office, are properly costed so that their impact on the Criminal
Defence Service budget can be taken into account. This is an essential
feature of 'joined up Government' and needs to be done so that
the Government can consider the causes of rising costs, rather
than merely relying on the Department to tackle the symptoms.
10