MPs warn on legal aid reforms

A cross-party committee of MPs has raised concerns over proposed changes to the legal aid system, warning they could leave society's most vulnerable without proper representation.

The Commons constitutional affairs committee criticised government proposals to reduce by £500m the £2bn spent on legal aid every year by introducing fixed fees for legal aid work.

Questioning whether the changes were "necessary and proportionate", the MPs warned they could "limit access to justice for members of ethnic minorities".

Black and ethnic minority (BME) firms which "contribute significantly to community cohesion and access to justice" would be the most affected, the report said.

"We are concerned that some of the reform proposals may contravene the prohibition of indirect racial discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976," it added.

"Some of the reform proposals, notably the introduction of minimum contract sizes, leave us in doubt as to whether they are a necessary and proportionate means to achieve the intended objective, which is the legal test."
 
While the committee supported "the general aims of the reforms", they warned of introducing the plans "in an atmosphere of panic" and "in too rigid a way and with insufficient evidence".

Committee chairman Alan Beith warned against "largely untested and unpiloted reform plans" operating within "far too short" a timescale.

"This is about people's access to advice and to justice, which could be irreversibly damaged if these reforms have the negative effects described in evidence to the committee," he said.

The government insisted the shake-up was necessary to "safeguard" the legal aid system and ensure "we are getting the best possible value from it".

"Making the system work as efficiently as possible will mean we can put more emphasis on civil and family legal aid so we can help as many vulnerable people as possible," said legal aid minister Vera Baird.

Pledging to consider the report, she insisted the government and Legal Services Commission "take our equality and diversity duties very seriously".

She noted that the proposals accounted for "any potential impact on all equality strands", adding: "I am committed to ensuring that we provide legal advice that reflects the communities we serve as widely as possible."

However, opposition parties have raised concerns over limited access to legal advice.

Shadow constitutional affairs secretary Oliver Heald condemned the government's policy as "reckless and ill-thought through".

"Our network of high-street solicitors will be damaged, leaving 'advice deserts' with many vulnerable people unable to access justice close to home," he said.

Liberal Democrat constitutional affairs spokesman Simon Hughes said: "When a cross-party committee says that access to advice and justice could be irreversibly damaged and calls for a fundamental rethink of the proposed legal aid changes, then ministers would be foolish or careless not to stop for a rethink.

"The select committee is the latest and most influential of voices joining the chorus of alarm and criticism of the government."

The Law Society has called for a halt to the plans, warning they posed a "breathtaking risk".
 
"The findings of this group of cross-party MPs is a damning indictment of the government's ill-thought-out and disastrous reforms," said Law Society chief executive Des Hudson. 

He added: "The government's failure to do its own research was cavalier but to ignore the findings of this report and the numerous responses the Law Society and others have made would be nothing short of irresponsible."