Calling the shots over policy – Read our summary of the Magee Review.

The publication of Sir Ian Magee's "Review of Legal Aid Delivery and Governance" was followed immediately by a Ministry of Justice (MoJ) press release announcing government acceptance of the Review's recommendation that the Legal Services Commission (LSC) should become a MoJ Executive Agency. This change requires primary legislation.
Sir Ian suggests that the change will have the following benefits:

• it would ensure one "policy voice" - so that the MoJ would call "the shots over policy"
• having the LSC as "part of the MoJ family of agencies" would make it easier "to assess the impact of legal aid against demands of the whole system"
• economies of scale would lead to a reduction in policy and "other corporate resources". The report quotes the National Audit Office estimate that the MoJ spends £2 million p.a. on legal aid policy.

Sir Ian's report is critical of current arrangements, pointing to:

• governance problems:
• confused decision-making arrangements between the LSC and MoJ
• inadequate governance within the LSC
• complex and outdated legal aid forecasting by the LSC, leading to a lack of trust between LSC and MoJ
• poor financial management and governance by LSC.

The proposal that the LSC becomes a MoJ Executive Agency raises concerns about independence in the legal aid decision-making process - particularly where an individual seeks to take action against the government. Sir Ian suggests the establishment of a new "Legal Aid" tribunal (with running costs of £500K - £1 mill) to hear complaints and appeals against refusal of legal aid.
 
Although Sir Ian states that he is not reviewing legal aid policy, he does stray into suggesting options for the future of the social welfare law budget. Apparently in response to views expressed by some NfP representatives that social welfare law "services might be administered and delivered differently", he suggests the following options:

• "Pool SWL funding available to CAB with OGDs (other government departments), such as BIS, and allocate to CAB as grant-in-aid for distribution to local offices
• Channel resource through local authority Local Area Agreement framework to fund local advice services
• Allocate some areas of funding through local courts overseen by criminal justice boards, family justice boards and local strategic partnerships
• Regional contracts with lead providers (lead providers would sub-contract with smaller, locally based services depending on client need and provision in the area)."

These suggestions raise many questions and concerns. Sir Ian acknowledges that he has not had time to properly evaluate these possibilities and these suggestions do not form part of his recommendations for immediate action.
 
Read the full report here