Report comment

This old nugget keeps rearing its ugly head. I recall the proposal of a general levy was raised by Geoffery Bindman but I think it was said then that a levy would only serve to drive up the costs of those who do pay: the cost of the levy will not just fall on the larger corporate clients but also on SME's and Mr & Mrs Smith - why should they be made to effectively subsidise somebody else? The only way to organize the provision of legal advice for those unable to afford it is to raise funds out of general taxation, in other words Legal Aid, which is the fairest system. In terms of cost it is minimal and pound for pound excellent value.

Logically it is also flawed. The principle of a levy could be extended to any service that a large portion of the population don't have access to because of the barrier of cost. A levy creates the principle of law as special status that would give it a greater influence than it already has.

Good luck with the proposal in Manchester. I suspect that if introduced you'll find at least some firm's move out - bang go jobs and income. If introduced nationally I can see the larger firm's relocating abroad to avoid the levy in order to protect profits.

A levy is a well intended proposition but it is likely to lead to, conversely, a drop in tax receipts from law businesses and the relocation of bigger corporate law firms outside the UK. It also raises the principle of a levy across many other services which only dilutes the public ethos of a general tax system. Hardly, I would think, the outcome intended.