Should the UK Government provide Free Legal Services, like it does for the NHS?

Anagi Bartholemeuz

A public service is a government-offered service that helps support and is accessible to all members of the community. The idea of the government providing and funding legal services is that they have many economic and social benefits.  

For the government to publicly fund legal services, as it funds the NHS, it presents economic benefits. One of the main benefits is that this will allow the economy to grow in the long term. An example of a solicitor's hourly rate is £200 per hour, and the bill can easily exceed £1000. This cost takes away from a consumer being able to buy other goods and services, as they will have to spend most of their disposable income on legal help. The demand for lawyers has increased over the years, highlighting how more and more people need legal help and therefore will be spending their income on lawyers. By the government freely providing legal aid, this allows consumers to spend their disposable income on goods and services, adding to aggregate demand and allowing the economy to grow. 

However, the government needs some form of money to be able to provide this legal service to everyone, and the most common way the government can generate this revenue is through taxes. 18% of the UK’s tax revenue goes towards the NHS, which highlights the extreme cost it takes to fund a public service. This new tax will cause families to lose more of their disposable income. This could result in a trapped poverty cycle. Whilst it is positive that people won’t have to pay for their legal help, when anything is free, this puts a steep increase in the demand for people wanting to use it. This means that the government has to try and meet this demand by trying to increase the resources in the public service. However, this takes time, and so, in the short run, the government has to overwork its already employed workforce without increasing their wages, as this would cost the government even more money. As workers now have to work more but are earning their current wage rate, they lose the incentive to work; therefore, the quality and standard of their work decrease as they are overworked and also unmotivated. This is seen with the current NHS strikes. Overall, based on this evidence, one can see that the economic costs of the government providing legal services dramatically outweigh the benefits. 

On the other hand, freely funded legal services would significantly reduce social inequality in the UK. If everyone has the same access to legal services, like health care, this could prevent people from being disadvantaged in court due to their income. Like the NHS, public services are open to all members of the community, and therefore everyone can reap the benefits of the service without having to worry about the costs. When costs are the main issue to accessing a certain service, this can create a difficult decision as to whether you should live with or without the service. For instance, in America, health care is largely provided by the private sector, and a simple doctor's appointment costs between $80 - $150. As the cost rises, people may be deterred from seeking out health care due to the high costs, creating a sacrifice between health and money. Publicly funding legal services allows those who can and those who can’t afford legal services to have access to the same service, reducing social inequality in society which is a key economic and also political aim.

 In contrast, whilst having a publicly funded legal service allows everyone to have the same access to the service, those on higher incomes will still have the option and ability to use private legal care. Private legal care is said to be more thorough and reliable due to the fact that you are paying for an expert solicitor, whereas with government-funded legal services, the resources are likely to be ‘slimmer’ and ‘less experienced’. This means that those who have the money will be able to afford better legal service compared to those who don’t have the money, reinstalling the social inequality between those who can and can’t afford legal services. Additionally, if legal services were free, this can create long waiting times to access the service, resulting in the quality of the service to decrease. In order to resolve these backlogs, the government will have to increase its funding towards the service, which would require taking more money out of taxpayers or cutting government spending in other areas. Overall, in the short run, publicly funded legal services could reduce social inequality but in the long term, it will essentially exacerbate the situation with those who can afford private legal care and those who cannot.

In summation, from an economic and social point of view, it would be sensible to suggest that the government should not provide publicly funded legal services. Despite the fact that free legal service could give everyone the same access to legal aid and saves disposable income for those who need legal help, the tax required to fund the service will significantly damage those on lower incomes. Additionally, like with the NHS, a public service can be abused and overused, creating a backlog, which lawyers already suffer largely from in the UK.