After the battering the Government’s legal aid proposals took in the Commons it was the turn of the Lords to sink their teeth in when the proposals were the subject of a debate last Thursday.

Opening the debate, Lord Beeching pointed out that the Government’s Green Paper on legal aid reform proposes a massive cut in the civil legal aid budget of £279 million, with a much smaller reduction of around £71 million in the criminal legal aid budget. It achieves this by substantially reducing the scope of the scheme across most of the categories currently covered, while several categories are removed entirely. He said that, based on the latest Legal Services Commission data, some 725,000 cases will not be assisted, adding that the impact is concentrated on the poorest. Currently, 80 per cent of legal help cases and 90 per cent of cases where legal representation is funded involve the poorest 20 per cent of the population. As regards alternative sources of support, he said that law centres and Citizens Advice are under extreme financial pressure, both from the withdrawal of government funding implicit in the proposals of the Green Paper and from local councils struggling to cope with the largest ever reduction in government grants. He urged the Government to consider very carefully the Law Society’s proposals for savings which he reckoned could bring a total of £469 million-worth of savings. He quoted the current Lord Chief Justice as saying that the proposals fail “to recognise the depth of the problem,” and “would lead to a huge increase in the incidence of unrepresented litigants, with serious implications for the quality of justice and for the administration of the justice system.”

Baroness Sherlock focused on one particular aspect of the Government’s plans for legal aid, the proposal to take social welfare law out of scope. She said that of the cuts to be made, more than £l00 million will be cut from social welfare legal aid and, as a result, most social welfare law and legal advice will no longer be covered. This is at a time when the Welfare Reform Bill, described as the biggest change to the welfare system for over 60 years, is currently making its way through Parliament. She concluded: “My concern is that when Governments make changes on this scale, mistakes inevitably happen. Given all those changes, does this feel like a good time to stop providing advice and help to benefits claimants in those settings? I think not.” Lord Thomas’s concern was medical negligence, his fear being that the removal of legal aid “will deny access to justice to some of the most vulnerable groups in the country – children, the sick and disabled. The need to streamline costs and for systems to be efficient should not be at their expense.”

Baroness Helena Kennedy drew attention to something Jonathan Djanogly, the justice department Minister in charge of legal aid, said at the Conservative Party conference last year. He said: “Legal aid can be a good filler for those lawyers out of work or women who want to get back into the legal job market after having children.” Baroness Kennedy said: “It shows an attitude to legal aid which is to misunderstand it.” Her concern was also medical negligence cases, saying that “removing legal aid completely will mean that poor people who suffer terrible things within our hospitals will not be able to sue.”

Replying to the lengthy debate, Minister of State Lord McNally said: “We are still in consultation. I cannot say that the consultation is going to produce some Pauline conversion at the last moment. As I say, we have made a commitment to savings and we intend to deliver them.” Then, like Jonathan Djanogly in the Commons earlier, he played a dead bat. A contributor to the BBC’s online commentary while the debate was taking place said: “Poor McNally, poor performance. Mostly today…he’s just reading out word for word the introduction to the Green Paper published last November. Does he know? Pretty disrespectful to the House if he does. Civil servants in MoJ can’t be bothered to write him a speech and he can’t be bothered to check.” Another contributor said: “Only one speaker in favour of the reforms…That sums up the whole debate perfectly. Nobody was interested in seeking to defend what the government is doing, even those on the government benches.”

Picture courtesy of UK Parliament’s photostream

The number of people who will lose out on access to civil legal advice services if the legal aid cuts are implemented was quoted as 502,000 in the Ministry of Justice’s impact assessment on scope changes published in support of the green paper. A significant number in all conscience, but the Legal Action Group believe that the true number of people who will lose out on legal aid services is 653,659, 30% greater than was previously estimated by the government.

The Official Solicitor to the Senior Courts represents the interests of those involved in litigation who do not have capacity. One of his primary functions is to act as last resort litigation friend in civil and family proceedings. As a matter of law individuals who lack the mental capacity to conduct their own litigation, and the majority of children, are not permitted to conduct their own litigation. He can see no alternative dispute resolution method identified in the Consultation Paper which would provide the protection currently recognised as necessary both for persons who would lack litigation capacity in court proceedings and for the other party or parties to the dispute. In his view there is a very serious risk that the proposals would act to limit access to justice for some of the most vulnerable in society.

The Law Society say the Government runs the risk of reduced social cohesion, increased criminality, reduced business and economic efficiency. “In a time of economic difficulties, the demand for legal aid services increases. More people will need advice. Increased poverty and financial stress may lead to crime, and to abuse or neglect in the home, requiring intervention from social services.” The Society does not agree that the telephone helpline should be the single gateway. A significant proportion of clients who qualify for legal aid find accessing services by telephone difficult or even impossible. The cost of calls may be a significant barrier. In addition, the consultation paper fails to recognise the combined impact of the proposed cuts on other areas of work. The removal of many categories of social welfare law and family work from the scope of legal aid is likely to hit the viability of many crime firms very hard.

Liberty believe that in excluding large areas of the law from the scope of legal aid, the proposed reforms will create alarming gaps in protection, denying justice to many but hitting the most vulnerable the hardest. This will contribute towards a culture of impunity amongst the rich and the powerful. They are “profoundly concerned about proposed measures which risk fundamentally diluting principles of transparent justice and due process. Liberty is further deeply troubled about the potential of these measures to erode the constitutional bulwark of the right to trial by jury.”

Legal Aid Practitioners Group find “profoundly objectionable…the Government’s idea that people are rushing to litigation and that lawyers in the legal aid system are encouraging this.” The number of providers of Legal Aid has dropped from 11,000 in the early 1990s to approximately 3,000 now. The number continues to fall as less and less can survive the poor remuneration and burdensome restrictions imposed upon them. The proposed reforms will lead to huge further losses, and the Legal Aid system is already rationed by the lack of providers. Young Legal Aid Lawyers  believes that, if implemented, these proposals will destroy one of the best legal aid systems in
the world. The impact assessments also confirm that the proposals are likely to disproportionately affect women, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic groups and disabled people. The proposals will “shake the foundations of our society as they will mean that the rule of law will only apply to those who can afford the law or the very poorest in the most desperate of situations.” In their view the legal aid scheme is fundamental to the rule of law and for ensuring justice is properly administered.

Over 5,000 responses were sent to the MoJ from both individuals and organisations concerned about the provision of legal aid services. It remains to be seen whether this barrage of detailed, informed criticism will have any effect. The best way to access many of these responses is on the admirable ilegal site at:

http://www.ilegal.org.uk/

The Law Society found itself on the horns of a dilemma when the recent tender for civil and family legal aid work sparked a row with the LSC. Just over half the firms bidding for family contracts were successful, and the Society says this means businesses will close and people may find it difficult to get a lawyer, especially in rural areas. The new contracts are due to start on 14 October.

A statement by Law Society president Linda Lee states that the result of the tender would see the number of family law firms offering legal aid reduced from 2,400 to 1,300, with the loss of many highly expert lawyers from the legal aid system, and the development of significant geographical gaps and shortages of services. But she goes on to say: “This is an issue that has divided practitioners. Of those firms who have succeeded in obtaining a contract many are satisfied with the outcome, and some but by no means all, would prefer it if nothing was done to disturb the result. There are others who although they are uneasy with the impact on unsuccessful bidders take the same view because they conclude this will cause the least disruption. Many firms that have failed to obtain a contract face having to make redundancies or even close their firms. There is no one course of action that is ‘in the profession’s interests’”. The Society accepts that, whether it chooses to act or not, a proportion of its members would be unhappy with the decision, and are acutely aware of the difficulty taking action may cause those successful firms who are planning to expand their businesses either by volume, new work type or a new geographic location.

Linda Lee goes on to say: “As a profession we accept and are proud of an ethical code that is higher than pure commercial considerations. We have a duty to protect the public interest. A reduction in access to justice cannot be in the public interest particularly when it affects the most vulnerable people in society, those who are seeking to establish their basic rights.” Therefore the Society has sent a pre-action protocol letter to the  LSC, challenging the lawfulness of its decision to proceed with the allocation of family law contracts. The Society believe the contracts offered would leave many areas with a grossly inadequate supply, and consider that the family justice system will be seriously impoverished by the loss of a significant cadre of highly skilled and dedicated practitioners who are willing to provide publicly funded services to those whose need is most acute.

The President also asserts that that the LSC’s Equalities Impact Assessment was fundamentally flawed, with no account taken of the fact that the majority of applicants for domestic violence injunctions and ancillary relief are women, who are likely to suffer additional difficulties in securing the services they need because of the reduction in the number of firms available. The Society also fears that there will be significant disruption in the short term as unsuccessful firms close down their departments, either by force of economic circumstances or because their staff have migrated to successful firms. Many clients may find themselves losing their representation in the middle of their cases, and will then have to try to find a new lawyer, with no assurance that successful bidders will be willing or able to take on all of these migrating clients. The LSC has been asked to extend the existing contracts for family law for a short period in order to give it time to conduct a review addressing these issues.

Linda Lee concludes: “It is for the LSC to ensure compliance with its legal obligations, and if it does not do so, and access to justice for vulnerable clients is threatened as a result, we are ready to take all appropriate steps to secure such compliance. I hope that can be done quickly, effectively and amicably.”

The Ministry of Justice has announced a further analysis of expert witness fees paid in legal aid work. It is seeking the support of civil and criminal legal aid solicitors in a data collection exercise being conducted on their behalf by the Legal Services Commission.

This follows a consultation exercise carried out last year on legal aid funding reforms. A response to the main consultation was published in December last year, but this did not include the proposals relating to experts’ fees. A further analysis, published in March this year, showed that 270 responses were received to the part of the consultation paper on experts’ fees. The majority of respondents were against imposing either fixed fees or the suggested hourly rates on the basis of current knowledge. There was a strong message from all categories of professional expert witness that if inadequate remuneration rates are imposed, this would lead to more experienced practitioners refusing to undertake the work, potentially leading to access and quality problems across England and Wales. It was accepted that something should be done to regulate rates charged as they were often variable and too high.

MoJ felt that several expert groups would be keen to assist them in gaining a better understanding of their work and better control over both price and quality. They therefore proposed a data gathering exercise to increase their understanding of the type of work experts undertake and what current rates are paid for this. Undoubtedly this is in response to the National Audit Office’s highly critical report to Parliament on the procurement of criminal legal aid in England and Wales and the Public Accounts Committee’s savaging of the Legal Services Commission. The PAC said: “Because the Commission is the sole buyer of legal aid, it is important that it knows it is paying the right price for this and the effects its policies are having on the sustainability of providers. But it does not know enough about the costs and profitability of firms to know if it has set its fees at an appropriate level”. To help analyse and validate the findings of this exercise, and work towards establishing fixed fees and hourly rates, where appropriate, MoJ also propose to set up a working group including expert witness representative bodies and other interested stakeholders.

The LSC has issued a request for participants in a file review of  experts costs in legal aid work to ensure that the information collected is as comprehensive and representative as possible. The Commission has asked that practitioners send any recently closed legal aid case files that include invoices for expenditure on one or multiple expert witnesses, for inclusion in the review. They need to receive a representative sample across Family (certificated); Clinical Negligence (certificated) and Crime, for a list of specified matter types. The exercise will not include an examination of the costs of instructing interpreters. Practitioners willing to contribute to the file review should contact the LSC’s Chester office as soon as possible. The data collection exercise will be taking place over 7 or 8 weeks from the beginning of May.

For the text of the letter of invitation go to:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/docs/legal-aid-expert-witness-fees-letter.pdf

For the full text of “Legal Aid: Funding Reforms Part Three: Experts’ Fees” see:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/docs/legal-aid-funding-experts-response.pdf

Hard on the heels of the National Audit Office’s highly critical report to Parliament on the procurement of Criminal Legal Aid in England and Wales comes the Public Accounts Committee’s savaging of the Legal Services Commission, the body charged with administering the programme.

The Legal Services Commission (LSC) spends £2.1 billion a year on buying civil and criminal legal aid, mainly from solicitors and barristers, and a further £125 million on administration. While accepting that the Commission has successfully arrested the increase in legal aid spending in the last five years, the PAC nevertheless found it to be an organisation with poor financial management and internal controls and

deficient management information. These weaknesses resulted in the Commission having its annual accounts qualified for 2008–09 and an assessment that its procurement and administration of criminal legal aid posed risks to value for money.

The Committee was very concerned that such weaknesses in the Commission’s

performance had occurred when the Ministry of Justice spends over £2 million a year itself on legal aid policy matters and on overseeing the Commission. In the words of the report: “We found confusion and uncertainty about the respective roles of the two organisations which had led to duplication of effort on some issues and a lack of clarity about who should be responsible for others. Because the Commission is the sole buyer of legal aid, it is important that it knows it is paying the right price for this and the effects its policies are having on the sustainability of providers. But it does not know enough about the costs and profitability of firms to know if it has set its fees at an appropriate level”.

The gaps the Committee found in the arrangements to assure the quality of criminal legal aid procured made it harder to assess whether the services delivered represent good value for money. The LSC considered the introduction of tendering would remove the imperative for it to know the market, because prices would be set by competition. But the recently announced abandonment of its plans to introduce its tendering proposals following representations from the legal profession leaves the Commission not able to assess if it is paying a reasonable price for legal aid.

The LSC has been responsible for implementing significant reforms to legal aid recommended by Lord Carter, but the PAC concluded that constant changes in staff at senior level, and poor planning of the changes, has meant that reforms have often been delayed, have not always kept to their timetable, and have not been properly evaluated to assess their impact.

The full text of the Committee of Public Accounts’ report “The procurement of legal aid in England and Wales by the Legal Services Commission (Ninth Report of Session 2009–10)” can be found at

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmpubacc/322/322.pdf

On the 2nd April a joint statement was issued by the Law Society, Legal Services Commission and Ministry of Justice regarding the agreement they reached on the unified contract. This follows the recent Court of Appeal judgement about the civil legal aid contract.

The MOJ and the LSC have accepted “and will not challenge the decision of the Court of Appeal in favour of The Law Society’s (TLS) arguments that clause 13.1 of the Unified Contract is incompatible with the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 (the Regulations).”

There was an element of humble-pie eating in their admission that they “regret that the implications of those Regulations were not recognised earlier and acknowledge that TLS was justified in commencing those proceedings. MOJ and LSC further acknowledge and accept that the Court of Appeal judgment means that the only power of amendment which now remains in the civil Unified Contract is the power in clause 13.2.”

The Law Society was more triumphalist, claiming that it had “secured significant benefits for the civil legal aid system”, and that the agreement would “give many legal aid firms a much needed period of stability and certainty in which to plan their futures.” Des Hudson, Law Society chief executive, said “our talks with the LSC and the Ministry of Justice have not only helped ensure legal aid will receive vital financial support, they have also shown that we can work together in an effort to establish a more balanced system that is workable and accessible. However, we still have serious concerns about the future of legal aid and welcome the LSC’s commitment to a more open approach of better engagement with legal aid practitioners and the Society.”

Unified Contract Agreement – the details

The Law Society’s press release highlighted the following points of the agreement:-

• Best value tendering (BVT) in criminal legal aid will be delayed by six months to a date not before July 2009.
• an increase of 2% on all legal help fixed fees and underlying hourly rates from 01/07/08.
• care level 2 fee increases from £347 to £405.
• a 5% increase in CLR (controlled legal representation) fees and rates for mental health.
• a 5% increase in CLR fees and rates for immigration.
• a delay in implementing private law family litigators’ graduated fees.
• a closed list of all CLACS and CLANS (Community Legal Advice Centres and Networks) planned for the period ending April 2010.
• the LSC will, with effect from today, not seek to recoup historic unrecouped payments on account over six years old and where the amount outstanding is less than £20,000 – restrictions apply (see the full deed of settlement).
• a new process on standard monthly payments, designed to prevent changes happening so often, so unpredictably and with such large variations.
• LSC’s commitment to publish a route map setting out the outline of its proposals for the next five years, including a commitment that there will be no price competitive tendering for civil or family work before 2013.
• Reviews of the contract compliance audit process and the operation of peer review and other quality assurance mechanisms.

For full details and relevant links see:-

http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/civil/unified_contract.asp
http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/view=newsarticle.law?NEWSID=394906