10 Overall conclusions
179. We conclude that the faulty implementation
of the legal aid changes contained in Part 1 of the Legal Aid
Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 has harmed access
to justice for some litigants.
180. The underspend in the civil legal aid budget
should have rung alarm bells in the Ministry of Justice. The considerable
shortfall in debt advice and exceptional cases funding grants
should have received urgent investigation. The Ministry responded
swiftly to the shortfall in mediation cases. We regret that a
similar approach was not taken in other areas.
181. The Ministry of Justice has failed in three
of its four objectives for LASPO: it has not discouraged unnecessary
and adversarial litigation at public expense because the courts
and tribunals are having to meet the costs of a significant rise
in litigants in person and a corresponding fall in mediation;
it has failed to target legal aid at those who need it most because
it has failed to properly implement the exceptional cases funding
scheme; and it has failed to prove that it has delivered better
overall value for money for the taxpayer because it has no idea
at all of the knock-on costs of the legal aid changes to the public
purse. The Ministry of Justice has made significant savings in
the cost of the scheme but we conclude that it could have achieved
greater savings if it had reduced the knock-on costs of the reforms.
182. The Ministry of Justice has achieved its
primary objective of making significant savings in the cost of
legal aid in civil cases but in doing so it has failed fully to
meet three of the four objectives it set out. It has failed to
target legal aid at some of those who need it because of the wholly
inadequate implementation of the exceptional cases scheme. It
cannot demonstrate that it has achieved better overall value for
the taxpayer because it has no estimate of how great the knock-on
costs on the rest of the system have been as a result of the changes.
The changes appear at best to have had effect in discouraging
unnecessary and adversarial litigation at public expense.
183. There is no realistic early prospect of substantially
increased funding for legal aid in the civil courts. This makes
it even more important that the recommendations we have made to
ensure the current scheme works properly are implemented. These
include: better information from the Government on remaining eligibility
for legal aid; proper management of the exceptional cases funding
scheme so that it works as Parliament intended; an amendment to
the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012 giving the Legal
Aid Agency discretion to grant legal aid in appropriate cases
involving domestic violence; free mediation assessments for a
year; a rethink on the Legal Aid Agency's approach in a number
of areas; and careful monitoring of the geographical distribution
of legal aid providers. In the longer term, proper research into
the costs and effects of the scheme should inform a more fundamental
review of the policy.
| 
