Report comment

Annon at 09.58 is quite right. I recall the pleasure expressed by Mr (I'm a Black Cab) Hoon in Newcastle when he stated quite clearly that his job was to make lawyer's squeal through legal aid cuts. I recall Mr (Man of) Straw claiming that the rise in the number of Solicitors must be a cause for the rise in legal aid spend-something he has later suggested he is sorry for-and that something had to be done about legal aid spending and the gravy train.

I have heard MoJ civil sErvants state that the rise in legal aid spending must be stopped and that their must be a reduction in the amount spent-and that that would be achieved by cutting the number of lawyers-BVT then PCT.

The current lot are no better and nor were the Con Dems.

Justice is being looked at as a business. The Chief Executives of the relevant agencies have been selected becuiase they talk about the service as a business. Many have come from the NHS full of reformation zeal and biztalk.

What they, the civil servants and the politicians-of all colours-don't get is that access to justice is a right. If the only way to resolve an issue is to go to Court then the State must provide access to justice so that there is no difference between the service a rich man or corporation can achieve and that of someone of no, limited or moderate means. An equal playing field.

If mediation is to be a direct alternative to litigation then it is wrong that those who rely on legal aid are forced to use it whilst those who are paying their own way or representing themselves can avoid it. That is unfair.

In relation to mediation the MoJ promoted the lie that mediation was better than the Court battle in so far as that propaganda suggests that all that Solicitors do is to force clients into a court battle. Only about 8% of cases go to a final hearing. Litigants in Person avoid mediation like the plague-as do those with money-thE statistics show that. Those organisations who promote mediation continue to use lies and propaganda but the public vote for the "traditional route".

I despair at the SRA and LSB following the CMA demand for greater competition in the hope that the cost of legal advice and representation will fall whilst they ignore the affect that cuts to legal aid have had on access to advice and representation. The SRA and LSB are hell bent on filling the legal aid gap through reduced protection for citizens, poor oversight and control, a watering-down of "profession" so we talk about "providers" and "consumers" whilst ignoring the fact that this isn't working and the numbers willing to work for next to nothing at legal aid rates is reducing year on year. Capita and Sedexo can't fill every gap in the provision of State services.

The love of IT and "bots" expressed by some Ministers and Judges is laughable. They have fallen under the spell of legal futurists who offer solutions which are no more than ego trips and bumpf for their next book. The Dutch have given up on their Virtual Court as hardly anyone used it. Our civil servants and Judges have ignored that reality.

We have Court rooms which are underused because the resources have been limited. We have a shortage of Magistrates and Judges because resources have been limited. We have Courts which are in disrepair, lack proper wifi and lack knowledgeable staff in sufficient numbers. There aren't enough prosecutors or support staff. There aren't enough police officers or support staff.

You don't get "More for Less" you get less for less.

Only when there is a proper discussion across all participants in the justice system-and a total removal of biztalk-will any sustainable reform be agreed.