3 Understanding the impact of the
reforms
16. In the year following the reforms, there was
an increase of 18,519 cases (30%) in which both parties were representing
themselves (known as litigants in person or LIPs) in family courts.
Within this, there were 8,110 more cases involving contact with
children in which both parties were LIPs in 2013-14, an increase
of 89% from the previous year. Judges have estimated that cases
involving LIPs can take 50% longer and many legal professionals
have said that they place additional demands upon court staff.[29]
The NAO also identified an increase in the number of contested
family cases reaching the courts, with the figure rising from
64% in 2012-13 to 89% in 2013-14. We heard evidence from the Magistrates'
Association that magistrates feel that the significant rise in
the number of LIPs in family courts has had a negative impact
on the administration of justice.[30]
17. The Ministry does not understand the impact of
the increase in LIPs on court resources because it does not have
reliable information about key aspects of the court system, particularly
hearing lengths. The data that it collects on the representation
status of litigants and the type and complexity of cases is also
limited. The Ministry agreed that without this information, it
cannot know what impact LIPs have on court costs.[31]
Research that the Ministry commissioned to examine the impact
of LIPs recommended that follow up research is needed to examine
the impact of legal aid reforms on the impact of LIPs on the court
system.[32]
18. The Ministry told us that it does not believe
that cases involving LIPs take longer than other cases, and cited
its recently published 'experimental analysis', which indicates
that cases involving LIPs may be shorter than cases in which both
parties are represented.[33]
However, the Ministry acknowledged that the data used for this
analysis is drawn from estimates of hearing lengths made before
the actual hearings.[34]
The analysis that the Ministry referred to states that the data
analysed "is not intended to provide reliable statistical
data to be used for performance monitoring".[35]
The Ministry did not accept the anecdotal evidence provided by
the judiciary that there was a 50% increase in length of hearings
where there are litigants in person.[36]
19. The Ministry reduced the fees paid to legal aid
providers by 10% as a part of the reforms to reduce spending on
civil legal aid, but did not assess the costs of providing legal
aid or model the impact of the changes.[37]
Fees paid for legal aid have not been increased for inflation
since 1998-99, which equates to a real-terms reduction of 34%
before the additional 10% fee reduction is taken into account.
A large majority of respondents to the National Audit Office's
consultation with legal aid providers said that the price paid
for civil legal aid does not cover the cost of providing the service.
In addition, 56% said that their ability to provide comprehensive
legal advice to civil legal aid clients had become worse since
the reforms were implemented.[38]
20. The Ministry conducts peer reviews of legal aid
advice; most are targeted (providers are selected for review based
on concerns that the Agency has about them) and some are selected
at random. In 2013-14, 32% of targeted firms failed their review
and 23% of firms selected at random failed. In the previous year,
28% of targeted firms failed their review and 41% of firms selected
at random failed.[39]
The Agency could not explain why such a high proportion of firms
were failing to meet its quality thresholds or what the longer-term
trends were in its quality assurance results. It was also unable
to tell us whether there was any link between the reduction in
fees over time and the quality of civil legal aid being provided.
The Agency told us that it believes it has mechanisms in place
to monitor and address poor quality and that it sometimes issues
warning notices or does not renew contracts when providers fail
quality assurance tests. However, it appears to have done nothing
to understand the reasons why some providers are falling short
of the standards expected and would not commit to a target or
timeframe for improving the quality of legal aid to a more acceptable
level.[40]
21. While the Ministry is on track to reduce its
spending on civil legal aid significantly, it is likely that the
reforms will lead to costs to the wider public sector. The Ministry
acknowledged this in its 2012 impact assessment, noting that people
who would have had access to civil legal aid may no longer be
able to resolve their civil legal issues, and accepting that this
might lead to possible knock-on costs to government services including
health, welfare and housing. The Ministry did not attempt to quantify
these potential costs.[41]
22. We have reported previously on the importance
of understanding the full impact of cuts, and that interdependencies
between departments mean that cuts in one department can lead
to additional costs elsewhere.[42]
We asked the Ministry why it had not done more to measure the
costs of its reforms to the wider public sector. The Ministry
told us that it was not possible to know what the impact of the
reforms might be outside of the Ministry. We heard from the Treasury
Officer of Accounts that impact assessments often do not quantify
costs of policy changes to the wider public sector.[43]
Following the evidence session, the Ministry told us that the
failure to monetise potential knock-on costs of reforms is "representative
of a common pattern seen across government".[44]
23. Evidence from other organisations indicates that
more can be done to estimate the wider impacts of these reforms.
For example, Citizens Advice told us that it has surveyed clients
to gather evidence on the impact of their advice on their clients'
financial problems and mental and physical health.[45]
The Legal Action Group commissioned a survey of 1,001 GPs to gather
evidence about the impact of the reforms on the health and wellbeing
of patients. It found that the majority of GPs surveyed had noticed
an increase in patients who would have benefited from legal advice
on social welfare issues, and that 88% of GPs surveyed agreed
that the denial of access to legal advice on social welfare issues
can have a negative effect on health.[46]
24. These studies do not, in themselves, provide
conclusive evidence on the wider impact of the reforms, but they
are examples of the kind of work that can be done to develop a
better understanding of the value of civil legal aid and the likely
impact of removing access to it. We asked the Ministry whether
they did any work with other Departments to estimate costs to
their budgets, and the Ministry told us that it would not "be
a practical piece of research".[47]
The Ministry did not undertake any research on this subject before
implementing the reforms and told us that it does not intend to
do any further work to measure the impact or cost of the reforms
on the wider public sector. Without
this information, the Ministry is not able to know the full impact
of the spending reductions from its reforms and cannot know whether
or not the spending reductions to the legal aid budget outweigh
additional costs to other parts of government.[48]
29 Qq 27, 66, 71; C&AG's Report, para 1.27 Back
30
Q 7 Back
31
Q 81; C&AG's Report, para 1.19 Back
32
Ministry of Justice, Litigants in person in private family
law cases, 27 November 2014 Back
33
Qq 66-78 Back
34
Qq 75-76 Back
35
Ministry of Justice, Experimental statistics: analysis of estimated
hearing duration in private law cases, England and Wales,
27 November 2014, p.7 Back
36
Qq 70-71 Back
37
C&AG's Report, para 3.20 Back
38
Q 189; C&AG's Report, para 3.14 Back
39
Q 178 Back
40
Qq 180-188 Back
41
Ministry of Justice, Impact assessment, p.11(link to .zip
file) Back
42
Committee of Public Accounts: Cost reduction in central government:
summary of progress, 80th Report of Session 2010-12,
HC 1845, 27 April 2012; and Managing Budgeting in Government,
34th Report of Session 2012-13, HC 661, 8 March 2013 Back
43
Qq 194-195, 204 Back
44
Letter from the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Justice, to the
Chair, Committee of Public Accounts, 12 December 2014 Back
45
Q 5 Back
46
Legal Action Group, Health legal advice: Findings from an opinion
poll of GPs, 3 December 2014 Back
47
Q 203 Back
48
Qq 194-195 Back
|