Read on Twitter
Some highlights, and lowlights, from the debate on legal aid spending heard yesterday.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-10-22/debates/031A6369-EED0-47AB-B5D7-A7D901ADADD2/MinistryOfJusticeLegalAidSpending
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-10-22/debates/031A6369-EED0-47AB-B5D7-A7D901ADADD2/MinistryOfJusticeLegalAidSpending
... there is a real problem now in attracting bright young lawyers...[to criminal law]...We have heard compelling evidence over the last ... last two or three years, from ... practitioners that there is now a real dearth of people ... willing to undertake the fairly onerous task
@neill_bob opened the debate:
...any civilised society should resource its justice system ... as it would ... any ... social service ... education, care for the elderly, healthcare or housing. Those are all matters that we would regard as part of the fundamental social fabric.
...any civilised society should resource its justice system ... as it would ... any ... social service ... education, care for the elderly, healthcare or housing. Those are all matters that we would regard as part of the fundamental social fabric.
...access to a workable court system is an equal part of that, requiring proper funding of the courts and judiciary, as well as, where appropriate, ensuring that those who have meritorious claims—a test to ensure that is fair—are not deterred purely by want of means ...
@KarenBuckMP_ said:
..We rely on legal aid lawyers now to carry out their work effectively, in some parts of the service almost for nothing. The level of remuneration is so poor that we rely heavily on the goodwill, dedication and vocation of legal aid lawyers to do this work..
..We rely on legal aid lawyers now to carry out their work effectively, in some parts of the service almost for nothing. The level of remuneration is so poor that we rely heavily on the goodwill, dedication and vocation of legal aid lawyers to do this work..
... this smearing by associating lawyers with political motivation and the label of “activist lawyers” ... it is disgraceful that Ministers...are not standing up for the legal profession ... In not defending those professionals, they are undermining the rule of law...
@JHowellUK said:
...the overall cut in expenditure for the Ministry of Justice since 2010 was about 38%... Have we cut out a tremendous amount of abuse of the legal aid system, or have we merely tinkered away at the edges or cut out things that we ought not to have?
...the overall cut in expenditure for the Ministry of Justice since 2010 was about 38%... Have we cut out a tremendous amount of abuse of the legal aid system, or have we merely tinkered away at the edges or cut out things that we ought not to have?
Mr Howell then went on to state that diversion through arbitration and mediation ought to be relied on more and awareness of it as an option for litigants raised.
@hammersmithandy stated:
... LASPO and the criminal legal aid changes that followed it was the wrong approach... it overturned 70 years of practice in legal aid. Instead of ... matters ... com[ing] within scope unless ... excluded, it required matters to be entered into.
... LASPO and the criminal legal aid changes that followed it was the wrong approach... it overturned 70 years of practice in legal aid. Instead of ... matters ... com[ing] within scope unless ... excluded, it required matters to be entered into.
I hope the Government will come to admit that. If they do not, I hope that a future Labour Government will reverse that trend, which has been detrimental to access to justice and equality of arms in the courts ever since.
... Grayling, who caused the chaos and confusion in criminal legal aid that we are still living with to this day, not just through the cuts in funds but through [shambolic reorganisation]... his reverse Midas touch is known across ... the MOJ, and is now a matter of legend.
...there has been a cut of about 38% in legal aid funding over the past 10 years, from about £2.6 billion to about £1.7 billion. At its lowest point, it was £1.6 billion. In any case, there have been such large cuts that they have threatened the whole sustainability of the field.
On criminal legal aid:
The most striking figure is the 8.75% cut in fees—until very recently there had been no increase in fees for about 20 years. There was a cut in 2014 and the net effect of that—the median net profit for practitioners after that—was minus 3%.
The most striking figure is the 8.75% cut in fees—until very recently there had been no increase in fees for about 20 years. There was a cut in 2014 and the net effect of that—the median net profit for practitioners after that—was minus 3%.
In other words, businesses were on average running at a loss. Where else would the Government, even in their most intolerant mode, expect people to work for nothing or less than nothing and not complain about it?
@Laura__Farris On criminal legal aid...the August announcement was part of the accelerated asks scheme. I know that it is welcome and viewers will know that the criminal Bar ... have said that it is not enough....it has been a really long road for ... criminal legal aid.
... young junior... cover[ing] a sentencing hearing...three to four hours of prep and maybe two hours on their feet... [could concern a 10 year prison sentence]... for that they get a standalone ... £126. That has a chilling effect on not only recruiting talent, but retaining it.
@Bambos_MP said:
LASPO [aims] were to discourage unnecessary adversarial litigation at public expense, to target legal aid towards those who needed it most, to make savings to the cost of the scheme, and to deliver better overall value for money for the taxpayer.
LASPO [aims] were to discourage unnecessary adversarial litigation at public expense, to target legal aid towards those who needed it most, to make savings to the cost of the scheme, and to deliver better overall value for money for the taxpayer.
Only one of those objectives was achieved, and that was saving money. That money was obviously swallowed up by the Treasury because it was not reinvested in justice and legal services.
The Law Society has noted that there is an existential threat to criminal legal aid firms. Shockingly, there are 124 fewer legal aid firms in 2020 than there were in 2019, which in turn was far fewer than the 1,861 there were in 2010.
[The Law Society] believes that in five to 10 years’ time there will be insufficient numbers of criminal duty solicitors in many regions, leaving many people vulnerable, in need of legal advice and unable to access justice.
... listen to the Law Society and Bar Council’s call to fast-track the criminal legal aid review, particularly on legal aid fees, and promise the significant investment in the criminal justice system that is desperately sought...
As the Secret Barrister @BarristerSecret puts it:
“Without legal aid, without access to the knowledge and the skills by which we can enforce our rights, we are voiceless.”
It is therefore up to us to ensure that those voices are heard.
“Without legal aid, without access to the knowledge and the skills by which we can enforce our rights, we are voiceless.”
It is therefore up to us to ensure that those voices are heard.
@DavidLammy stated:
[CLAR] is designed to look at the sustainability of the profession ... we do not have time to wait for action. The report is not likely to be published until 2022 ... it will be too late to save money, or to save ... firms ... going out of business.
[CLAR] is designed to look at the sustainability of the profession ... we do not have time to wait for action. The report is not likely to be published until 2022 ... it will be too late to save money, or to save ... firms ... going out of business.
... in June 2020 there were 124 fewer criminal legal aid firms than the 1,271 there were in 2019, a drop of almost 10% in the past year and far fewer than the 1,861 firms ... in 2010 ... without urgent steps there is a genuine risk of the system collapsing on itself.
At a time when the court backlog is approaching 50,000, we cannot expect legal aid practitioners to weather the coronavirus storm with warm words alone.
Even before the pandemic, there was a 45% reduction in prosecutions over the past decade, but since the crisis began, many areas of legal aid work have been nearly cut in half.
There has been a 41% decrease in police station attendances, a 45% decrease in applications received for representation in the Crown courts, and a 42% decrease in applications received and representations made in the magistrates court.
When asked what support this Government would offer to keep the professions functioning, the Minister responsible pointed to unbilled work. He stated that legal aid providers were sitting on hundreds of millions of pounds for unbilled work, interim payments and hardship payments.
Legal aid providers were essentially told to pull themselves up by their bootstraps in the worst crisis since the second world war. The implication behind that was that they were not working hard enough to claim unbilled work.
It is about CLAR 2—the second criminal legal aid review—LASPO, court backlogs, funding cuts and legal aid, but if we zoom out of the detail, this is a debate about the type of society that we want to build.
The wealthy 1% will be able to bully and buy their way to the verdict that they desire. That is a vision not of a democracy but a plutocracy—a society controlled by people of great wealth or income. It is a step back to pre-enlightenment, a period we should have long left behind.
@AlexChalkChelt said:
Legal aid stands as a pillar of our constitution and a bulwark of our freedoms. For a great many people, it operates out of sight; they may go through their entire lives without encountering it, and in that way it is not like the NHS or schools or policing.
Legal aid stands as a pillar of our constitution and a bulwark of our freedoms. For a great many people, it operates out of sight; they may go through their entire lives without encountering it, and in that way it is not like the NHS or schools or policing.
Legal aid work will never provide the personal financial rewards for practitioners of a commercial/chancery practice .. nor should it ... we need a system ... to attract lawyers of sufficient calibre, prioritises acute legal need, achieve redress and improves people’s lives.
