When it comes to the issue of legal aid, is it not about time we started to listen to the people whose views matter most, asks Michael MacNeil?


The Law Society, the government, the Legal Services Commission and policy organisations such as Legal Action Group (LAG) all have strong opinions about how best to enable access to justice through legal aid. But can any of those organisations legitimately claim that we know what is best for the end-user?



In the melée following the publication of the Carter proposals, positions have become entrenched. LAG is no different. We have been vociferous in expressing concerns that the combination of an overly ambitious reform timetable, inadequate initial baseline funding and low fixed-fees is effectively gambling with an essential service for the many disadvantaged by society. But what has been missing from this debate is a direct voice on behalf of legal aid users.



Despite the concerns of many, the reform agenda will not be abandoned. While inadequate core funding is an obvious issue, it would also be wrong to suggest that the current pattern of provision is perfect. Is it time to accept that the state has a legitimate role beyond that of paymaster? Although central planning can have negative connotations, should some form of strategic overview not be given a cautious welcome?



Working on the assumption that it should, improving the accountability of decision-makers is key. This means that those most affected by the action of an entity should be able to influence its policy-making process. LAG's current discussion paper argues that it is time to attend to the yawning accountability gap for legal aid.



In principle, involving end-users is the right thing to do. It is accepted that providers genuinely try to articulate the interests of clients when changes to the legal aid system are proposed, but this is not a substitute for a direct user voice.



There is evidence that user involvement can lead to services being better focused. The public policy environment is awash with examples of user involvement being encouraged, so why should legal aid be any different? Surely developing a user perspective could help legal aid services better reflect patterns of behaviour and need?



Undoubtedly, such an initiative creates a challenge for existing interests, both those commissioning services and those providing them. There are many valid concerns about motivation, manipulation and method:

l Questioning government motivation for supporting user involvement is natural. Little effort is required to find gaps between the rhetoric of 'citizenship empowerment' and the reality of getting users involved;

l There is a potential for the user perspective to be manipulated. Evidence suggests that, over time, committee attendees tend to gravitate towards dominant interests, rather than continuing to promote those of users, so adopting a singular approach of including user representatives in decision-making would be ineffective; and

l Establishing a method for getting the views of the most marginalised is not easy, but a range of approaches within a co-ordinated framework is more likely to ensure that the user perspective is central to the policy-making process.



Obtaining the user perspective is difficult, but an outright rejection of the principle suggests that only purchasing bodies or service providers can know what is required. A new perspective will not result in seismic shifts in accountability, but it could assist with monitoring and evaluating change, acting as a check and balance for both purchasers and providers during this period of significant adjustment.



LAG has produced a short discussion paper - Developing the users' perspective - which is available at www.lag.org.uk. Responses from organisations and individuals by 30 May would be welcomed.



Michael MacNeil is policy director for Legal Action Group