A report published by the National Audit Office (NAO) today, is critical of the government’s failure to understand the wider consequences of its cuts to civil legal aid. However, by exposing the underspend in the budget for civil legal aid, LAG believes, the report gives ministers an opportunity to begin to address the problems identified by the NAO.   Among its headline findings the NAO found a shortfall of 17% in the predicted number of civil legal aid matters approved by the Legal Aid Agency last year. Despite a policy of trying to increase mediation in family cases there were also 56% less mediations than had been anticipated. According to the NAO these shortfalls mean that the government has exceeded its spending reduction target for civil legal aid by £32m.   LAG highlighted the issue of the reduction in the expected number of legal aid cases in two reports published earlier this year. We have also argued that the figures show that due to the reduction in suppliers, cuts to fees and increasing bureaucracy, the number of civil legal aid cases had been reducing before the implementation of the cuts to civil legal aid.   The NAO report highlights concern at the increase in unrepresented litigants in the family courts system and the potential for this to increase costs. They also express fears about the costs to the wider public sector if civil legal problems are not resolved, leading people to “suffer adverse consequences to their health and well being as a result of no-longer having access to legal aid”, (LAG will be publishing research evidence on this in the next few weeks).   LAG supports the view expressed in the report that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) needs to better understand how and why people access civil legal aid. We would add that the MoJ also needs to gain a better understanding of the types and range of problems being experienced by people, especially by poor and vulnerable groups. It is not sufficient to only be concerned with those people who pitch-up in the courts and tribunals system, as we believe this only reflects a determined and persistent few, and not the silent majority excluded from access to justice by lack of advice and legal support.   We would suggest that as a matter of urgency the government should use some of the £32m identified by the NAO to put some legal advice capacity back into the family courts system. They could do this by piloting a family legal advice service staffed by lawyers in some courts. Perhaps using a combination of legal advice and self-help? We would also suggest that they could look at establishing a fund to support social welfare law advice services, in hard pressed Citizens Advice Bureaux and other such centres, as suggested by Lord Low in his report.*     *The Low Commission was established by LAG, but is independent. It published its report in January this year and is continuing its work to persuade the government to address the gaps its has identified in the provision of social welfare law services for the public.