Westminster update: Law Society gives evidence on access to justice

Interest on lawyers' client accounts

The Ministry of Justice’s newly announced consultation on interest on lawyers’ client accounts (ILCA) will put high street firms at risk and increase costs for firms.

Find out more about how we are responding to the ICLA consultation.

You can support our response through our Get Involved programme.

Law Society gives evidence on access to justice in Justice Select Committee inquiry

On 6 January, Law Society head of justice Richard Miller gave evidence at the first session of the Justice Select Committee’s new inquiry into access to justice.

He appeared alongside Rohini Jana, director of policy at the Legal Aid Practitioners Group (LAPG), and Kirsty Brimelow KC, chair of the Bar Council.

The session focused on legal aid – how it works in practice, barriers to access and whether the lord chancellor currently meets his duties under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO).

The session was a valuable opportunity for us to advocate for our members on access to legal aid.

Miller drew attention to family legal aid rates, limited data collection in the qualified legal representative scheme and the impact of litigants in person on court proceedings.

On legal aid rates, Miller welcomed recent investments in criminal, housing and immigration legal aid but warned these will have limited long-term impact unless rates are maintained in real terms.

He cited our research with Frontier Economics showing that 82% of civil legal aid providers operate at a loss.

Miller also highlighted our legal did desert maps, showing areas where civil legal aid access is severely limited.

Witnesses also highlighted that the means tests used to determine eligibility for legal aid are outdated, with current thresholds excluding many families unless they are living in extreme poverty.

They stressed the lack of centrally collected data on unmet legal need and the cost-saving impact of early legal advice, with Jana calling for a national strategy to standardise and better use data across justice, housing and health systems.

Miller also addressed the Legal Aid Agency data breach, acknowledging staff efforts while criticising the lack of effective contingency planning. He described the system as “antiquated” and still vulnerable.

He nevertheless noted the benefits of delegated decision-making on client eligibility.

In addition, Miller supported proposals in the Public Office (Accountability) Bill to expand legal aid for inquests involving public bodies, while emphasising the need to build sector capacity and the cost-saving role of a strengthened duty of candour.

Opposition day debate on jury trials

On 7 January, the House of Commons debated a government proposal to abolish jury trials for offences carrying sentences of three years or less.

The opposition motion, introduced in the Commons by shadow lord chancellor Robert Jenrick, argued that jury trials are a cornerstone of justice and removing them would barely dent the court backlog.

Instead, Jenrick urged the government to increase court sitting days and publish its impact modelling.

Jenrick acknowledged chronic underinvestment in the criminal justice system, warning that “young people don't feel they can go into the law, or at least not into this most challenging and poorly paid part of it.”

However, he insisted that stripping away a centuries-old right was not the answer. Citing the Law Society and other stakeholders, Jenrick noted the proposal had “united everyone in opposition.”

Justice minister Sarah Sackman defended the government’s approach, pointing to record demand, severe delays and the growing complexity of cases due in part to digital evidence.

She stressed that the constitution guarantees a fair trial – not specifically a jury trial – and promised an impact assessment alongside any legislation.

Sackman argued reforms aim to preserve jury trials for serious cases while reducing delays for victims of major crimes.

Liberal Democrat justice spokesperson Jess Brown-Fuller called the proposals “highly irresponsible”, emphasising that trial by jury is “deeply enshrined in our conscience and constitution” and fundamental to public trust.

Other MPs echoed concerns. Sir David Davis warned the changes would affect only 3% of trials while undermining a core principle of justice.

Shadow justice minister Kieran Mullan also referenced the Law Society in his remarks, noting that we warned against the government’s proposals alongside other stakeholders.

Labour’s Pam Cox spoke in favour, highlighting that jury trials would remain for serious offences and that broader reforms are needed to maintain access to justice.

The motion was defeated by 290 votes to 182, with Labour’s Karl Turner breaking the whip to oppose the government’s amendment.

Sentencing Bill enters report stage

On 6 January, the Sentencing Bill entered report stage in the House of Lords.

We briefed MPs and peers throughout the progress of this bill through Parliament.

An amendment, tabled by Lord Bach with support from the Law Society and the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, sought to make sure that foreign national offenders (FNOs) will continue to have access to civil legal aid in appeals against their sentence which would result in their removal from the United Kingdom.

This would be applicable prior to the FNO's deportation in relation to their judicial review, immigration law matter or if they are a confirmed victim of trafficking.

In response, justice minister Lord Timpson confirmed the government would “make sure that the new arrangements take account of the need for some prisoners to have access to legal aid” and that they would keep the effectiveness of operational processes under review.

Coming up

We are working closely with MPs and peers to influence a number of bills before Parliament: