Looking through the statistical information from the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) for 2013/14, which was published last month, a clear pattern of decline is set out in stark detail (see page 6 of this issue). Volumes of cases have fallen by just over 39 per cent since a peak in 2009/10, and it is in civil law that this reduction has been most acute: down from over 1.2m acts of assistance (legal help cases) in 2009/10 to fewer than 400,000 in 2013/14. The cuts in scope introduced by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012 have had the largest impact on the number of cases, but the decline in civil legal aid predated the LASPO Act cuts (see June 2014 Legal Action 8).

Some of the reduction in legal aid cases has been caused by fewer cases going through the magistrates’ courts. This is because of a combination of falling crime rates and the increased use of summary justice in the police station, first initiated under the last government and continued under the present one. Although the falling volume of cases in crime may have other causes, we would argue that all of the reduction in civil cases can be attributed to the government’s policy of deliberately choking off access to justice for civil law problems.

The day after the statistical report was published, the LAA’s first annual report was released (see page 4 of this issue). Like the reports of its predecessor, the Legal Services Commission, this report needs to be read in conjunction with a reality check from the experience of practitioners on the ground. In this regard a chilling aspect of the report is its assertion that this year (2014/15) the LAA will make it mandatory for providers to submit applications and bills for legal aid online. The latest hitch with the software revealed last month (an ‘unforeseen software upgrade issue’ we were told) and the feedback LAG gets from practitioners about difficulties with the system suggest that the LAA might fall short of this target or, even worse, try and impose the use of software on practitioners which is not fit for purpose.1See: www.justice.gov.uk/legal-aid/newslatest-updates/civil-news/update-on-ccms.

The LAA’s annual report has a rather self-congratulatory tone, which in places provides some unintentional (one assumes) laugh-out-loud moments. It celebrates the fact that customers now take on average only two minutes to reach the advice line, down from 20 minutes in the previous year, omitting the fact that the numbers using the advice line have fallen off a cliff.2See Civil legal aid – the secret legal service (2), LAG, September 2013, p2, available at: www.lag.org.uk/media/164665/legal_aid_secret_service2.pdf.

LAG believes that the LAA’s report glosses over the reduction in the number of legal aid cases, as the agency’s primary purpose is to manage demand through bureaucratic control rather than having any concern with access to justice. This reflects the LAA’s founding statute, the LASPO Act, and the priorities of this government, which seems to view legal aid as a problem to be managed rather than as a public service to be promoted. Given this, the lack of official recognition of the service’s 65th anniversary comes as no surprise.

While the scope cuts from last year have reduced significantly the capacity of legal aid to assist members of the public with everyday civil legal problems, what remains is still noteworthy: a total of just over £1.7 billion was spent in 2013/14 on civil and criminal legal aid. Legal aid continues to ensure equality before the law for those accused of a crime and provides a substantial, though we would argue rather threadbare, civil human rights safety net.

In opinion-poll evidence that LAG is aiming to publish to coincide with the anniversary, public support for legal aid is shown to be remarkably strong. This is despite the negative publicity about the scheme, which is often fuelled by politicians in government. We believe that the public understands the importance of legal aid in defending them against injustice and guaranteeing their rights. It is to be hoped, therefore, that before we celebrate the 70th birthday of legal aid, the government of the day begins to reflect this public support and gives the service an expanded role at the heart of an access to justice policy.