It is a common cry, when a decision goes against someone, that there was a flaw in consultation. But the objections to what is proposed for the withdrawal of legal aid in the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill are more substantive than the lamentations of sore losers.

The 5,000-odd submissions to the government’s legal aid consultation did much more than register opposition to proposed cuts in provision. Many also contained eloquent, practical and detailed explanations of the wider consequences of the cuts proposed.These were consequences for expenditure that would be incurred elsewhere in the public sector; for the rights of individuals affected; and for standards of bodies who would not be held to account by publicly funded litigants.

Kenneth Clarke has chosen to ignore these points. In doing so, he, fellow ministers and civil servants are taking public policy into territory that shares a long border with malfeasance in public office.

The withdrawal of legal aid from scope for the areas proposed does not result from negligence or incompetence. It is deliberate and doctrinaire, and turns a wilful blind eye to the consequences and costs of the policy, as identified in those submissions.

In withdrawing legal aid on this scale, the government fails in one of its key duties – namely to provide a balanced and independent mechanism for sustaining access to justice for all. This is a shameful bill.