Falling on deaf ears

Despite more than 5,000 responses to the government's consultation, the legal aid bill offers few concessions. If enacted, it could deprive nearly 70 per cent of people currently eligible for legal aid of access to justice. According to the figures collated by the Legal Action Group, Liverpool, one of Britain's most deprived areas, is set to lose 80 per cent of its casework.

Social welfare will be one of the major casualties, with an estimated 600,000 people becoming ineligible for legal aid, while the 'incoherent' proposals for housing place unrealistic expectations on expanded mediations. In family cases legal aid will only be available in the most extreme of circumstances.

Lawyers fear a rise in litigants in person, while law centres, usually trusted to pick up those falling by the wayside, may no longer have the means to keep going (see comments below and opposite).

The Law Society was among the respondents, not just contributing a detailed response but also launching 'Sound Off For Justice', one of the society's most prominent public awareness campaign for decades. The bill for the campaign so far is in the region of £300,000, but has it paid off? The profession appears to have rallied behind its representative body, which wasn't necessarily a given. Less obvious is whether the wider public has got the message at a time when the tabloids are still running stories about 'fat cat' legal aid lawyers.

Capture the public's interest by making the issue as relevant to people's everyday lives as the NHS was crucial to the campaign's success. Make legal aid cuts as unpopular as healthcare reforms and maybe the government would revisit the proposals.

But even with the 21,000 plus signatures on Sound Off's online petition it is not clear that the campaign has succeeded in reaching out beyond the confines of the legal profession.

By comparison, the 'Save the NHS' campaign has received more than 426,000 signatures, and the 'Save our forests' campaign scored 537,000 signatures '“ both of which were run by 38 Degrees.

Sound Off still has some way to go but Law Society chief executive Hudson remains upbeat. For the first time in many years, he says, his campaign has resulted in greater coverage of access to justice in the national papers.

The Sound Off proposals would result in £384m savings, according to the Law Society, and include: doing away with first class travel for advocates appearing outside their circuit, which the Law Society says would save £9m; make the government pay for the costs of cases it loses (the 'polluter pays' principle), which would save £94m; and a cap on legal aid earnings of £250,000, which would save £16m.

However, considering the work the Law Society put into its alternative cuts suggestions, Hudson says he is disappointed the government has not engaged. He is particularly critical of some of the proposals which he says would circumvent the outcomes of the judicial reviews the society won last year.

The bill will receive its second reading in the Commons on 29 June, suggesting the government is keen to press on with its proposals. Political opposition so far has been generic and low-key, with Labour said to be focusing its attack on the Jackson aspects of the bill in the Lords.

Conditional fee agreements were introduced to fill the justice gap where legal aid wasn't available. What worries the profession is that, if they are now curtailed by the costs reforms advocated by Lord Justice Jackson, this gap will open wider.

Perhaps the saddest observation is that Sound Off seems to be the only initiative of any significance. What is really needed is for all 5,000 respondents to regroup and speak with one voice. Then perhaps the public will embrace opposition to the reforms and the government under proper pressure to reconsider.