Cuts in fees for criminal legal aid have been announced by the government. Details of the cuts were given by legal aid minister Lord Bach in a written ministerial statement to parliament at 12 noon today. The cuts follow the proposals outlined in the August 2009 paper, Legal aid: funding reforms. The main proposals are:
- Fees for police station work will be cut back in the areas the government describes as 'the most expensive and over-subscribed'. LAG understands that this could hit up to 160 areas.
- One fixed fee will be paid for committal hearings.
- The fee for file reviews in criminal cases will end.
An announcement on the reduction in experts' fees, which had also been proposed, will be made in January. The government will also launch a second consultation on reducing Crown Court fees. The government estimates that £23m will be made in savings from the cuts announced today over the next year.
LAG knows that these cuts will hit some hard-pressed firms, especially in London, where the cost of undertaking police station cover can be higher due to delays and the diverse range of clients who need advice. In some respects, though, this could be seen as the least worst option if the cash saved can be used to prop up the civil legal aid budget which is creaking under the strain of increased demand caused by the recession.
LAG is being told by legal aid lawyers that the Legal Services Commission has run out of money for civil cases. For £23m, 115,000 more clients in debt or 132,000 more clients with housing problems could be seen. LAG will be seeking assurances that this money will not disappear back into the Treasury's coffers, but will be used to help people cope with the effects of the recession.
Showing posts with label recession. Show all posts
Showing posts with label recession. Show all posts
Wednesday, 16 December 2009
Thursday, 3 December 2009
Don't back down Bach!
In a meeting yesterday, the legal aid minister Lord Bach told leaders from groups representing legal aid lawyers that there would be no new cash for civil legal aid. This is despite growing evidence of the increasing numbers of people who need help with civil law problems.
LAG is hearing from practitioners that they are being refused permission to start new cases once they have reached the limit set by the Legal Services Commission. According to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) there have been 20,000 more cases between April and August 2009 than in the same period last year. With four or five months being the likely wait for permission to take on new cases, the fear is that many clients needing help with problems caused by the recession will be cut off from getting legal advice.
Lord Bach told the meeting that the Treasury would 'laugh' if he approached it for more cash to fund the extra work needed. While LAG appreciates the difficult financial position the government is in, we do not believe that the MoJ should cower away from making its case for more money. It is an unfortunate, but wholly predictable, effect of the recession that the demand for civil legal aid has increased.
Civil legal aid should be seen as part of the welfare state's safety net to help people in these difficult times. Like other state benefits the government should meet the cost of these extra cases as as essential part of its response to helping people through the recession. The relatively paltry sum in government terms of £10 million could buy an extra 30,000 or more cases and bring justice to victims of this bank-inspired recession.
LAG is hearing from practitioners that they are being refused permission to start new cases once they have reached the limit set by the Legal Services Commission. According to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) there have been 20,000 more cases between April and August 2009 than in the same period last year. With four or five months being the likely wait for permission to take on new cases, the fear is that many clients needing help with problems caused by the recession will be cut off from getting legal advice.
Lord Bach told the meeting that the Treasury would 'laugh' if he approached it for more cash to fund the extra work needed. While LAG appreciates the difficult financial position the government is in, we do not believe that the MoJ should cower away from making its case for more money. It is an unfortunate, but wholly predictable, effect of the recession that the demand for civil legal aid has increased.
Civil legal aid should be seen as part of the welfare state's safety net to help people in these difficult times. Like other state benefits the government should meet the cost of these extra cases as as essential part of its response to helping people through the recession. The relatively paltry sum in government terms of £10 million could buy an extra 30,000 or more cases and bring justice to victims of this bank-inspired recession.
Friday, 4 September 2009
No time to pull your punches!
Citizens Advice published a report in July, No time to retire – legal aid at 60, which warns that more people are being denied access to civil legal aid despite a huge increase in demand fuelled by the recession. It argues that fewer people are getting civil legal aid due to barriers such as patchy geographical provision, long waiting times and complex qualifying criteria.
Two surveys carried out by Citizens Advice Bureaux (CAB) in 2008 and 2009 discovered that CAB across England and Wales regularly find it almost impossible to locate a Community Legal Service (CLS) lawyer for court and tribunal proceedings, or a legal aid lawyer to deal with specialist issues. Seventy-six per cent of CAB had problems finding a CLS lawyer to deal with urgent employment cases, while 75 per cent could not find a CLS lawyer to deal with urgent housing matters, and 68 per cent said they had problems finding a CLS lawyer to take on urgent family cases.
These are damning statistics and they confirm what LAG, legal aid providers and other commentators are saying about the availability of legal aid, but the report has received little coverage in the media. This is a great shame because it also challenges the commonly-held view in government circles that voters are not concerned about legal aid. Independent research commissioned by Citizens Advice for the report showed great public support for legal aid. Two thousand people were questioned in March this year - 92 per cent thought it was either very important (68 per cent) or quite important (24 per cent) for people on low incomes to get legal aid for problems such as debt, benefits, family law, housing and employment. LAG would argue that a similar opinion poll needs to be conducted on criminal legal aid to gauge public support for legal aid and its importance in ensuring a fair trial for people accused of a crime.
Hopefully, the support for civil legal aid reflected in the survey results and the concerns expressed in the report will be given greater prominence in the run-up to the general election. A higher profile for legal aid in the election campaign is needed to head-off any belief that legal aid is a 'soft option' for cuts and, most importantly, to convince the public that their money is being wisely spent on providing access to justice.
Two surveys carried out by Citizens Advice Bureaux (CAB) in 2008 and 2009 discovered that CAB across England and Wales regularly find it almost impossible to locate a Community Legal Service (CLS) lawyer for court and tribunal proceedings, or a legal aid lawyer to deal with specialist issues. Seventy-six per cent of CAB had problems finding a CLS lawyer to deal with urgent employment cases, while 75 per cent could not find a CLS lawyer to deal with urgent housing matters, and 68 per cent said they had problems finding a CLS lawyer to take on urgent family cases.
These are damning statistics and they confirm what LAG, legal aid providers and other commentators are saying about the availability of legal aid, but the report has received little coverage in the media. This is a great shame because it also challenges the commonly-held view in government circles that voters are not concerned about legal aid. Independent research commissioned by Citizens Advice for the report showed great public support for legal aid. Two thousand people were questioned in March this year - 92 per cent thought it was either very important (68 per cent) or quite important (24 per cent) for people on low incomes to get legal aid for problems such as debt, benefits, family law, housing and employment. LAG would argue that a similar opinion poll needs to be conducted on criminal legal aid to gauge public support for legal aid and its importance in ensuring a fair trial for people accused of a crime.
Hopefully, the support for civil legal aid reflected in the survey results and the concerns expressed in the report will be given greater prominence in the run-up to the general election. A higher profile for legal aid in the election campaign is needed to head-off any belief that legal aid is a 'soft option' for cuts and, most importantly, to convince the public that their money is being wisely spent on providing access to justice.
Wednesday, 22 April 2009
Poorer areas miss out on extra legal aid cash
LAG has published an analysis of the Legal Services Commission’s (LSC’s) distribution of an extra £10 million for help with civil law problems (see: www.lag.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=92925). The figures show that many of the poorest areas in the country missed out on the cash for more cases that was supposed to counter the impact of the recession.
Liverpool, the east London boroughs of Hackney and Tower Hamlets, Manchester and Knowsley are the top five most deprived areas according to government statistics and none of them received money for extra matter starts, to use the jargon, for debt, welfare benefits and other social welfare law work. In contrast solicitors and not-for-profit agencies such as Citizens Advice Bureaux (CABx), in three out of the five most prosperous areas, West Berkshire, Surrey and Rutland were all invited to apply for the extra money. Out of the top 20 most deprived areas only three received more cash while 15 from the 20 most prosperous areas did. Overall the figures show 20 per cent of the most deprived areas got only 23 per cent of the cash, while 20 per cent of the least deprived areas got 73 per cent of the cash.
The £10 million was allocated to matter starts in both family and social welfare law in the last six months of last year by the LSC. The LSC argues that the explanation for the seemingly unfair distribution of the money is due to its ‘indicative spend formula’ which it says seeks to rectify the uneven pattern of spending across the country.
We do not know if the indicative spend formula is fair as it has not been piloted or independently verified. Even if it had been, these figures still illustrate the bizarre postcode lottery that operates in allocating legal aid funds. The recession is hitting these areas the hardest. This is illustrated by the unemployment figures which show that it is the poorest areas that are losing the most jobs. It would seem that they are also missing out on the extra legal aid needed to tackle the problems unemployment brings in its wake.
One of the main issues with legal aid services is that the pattern of provision was largely set over the last 30 years by firms choosing to set up practices, not surprisingly, where there was sufficient concentration of clients to make their businesses viable, which tended to mean urban areas. As far as not-for-profit provision goes, well-funded CABx, Law Centres® and other advice agencies tend to be sited in the same areas, those with large local authorities which have the cash to spend on advice services. When such services are available clients pursue their legal rights, but demand often outstrips supply, as the full waiting rooms of many advice agencies and solicitors illustrate.
Recent comments from the minister for legal aid, Lord Bach, indicate that the government now recognises that these services have been chronically under-funded over the years and do not cover every part of the country. The question LAG asks is does the government have the political will to establish a rational system of planning based on client needs and is it willing to find the necessary injection of cash to ensure that all of the country is covered by an adequate level of services?
Liverpool, the east London boroughs of Hackney and Tower Hamlets, Manchester and Knowsley are the top five most deprived areas according to government statistics and none of them received money for extra matter starts, to use the jargon, for debt, welfare benefits and other social welfare law work. In contrast solicitors and not-for-profit agencies such as Citizens Advice Bureaux (CABx), in three out of the five most prosperous areas, West Berkshire, Surrey and Rutland were all invited to apply for the extra money. Out of the top 20 most deprived areas only three received more cash while 15 from the 20 most prosperous areas did. Overall the figures show 20 per cent of the most deprived areas got only 23 per cent of the cash, while 20 per cent of the least deprived areas got 73 per cent of the cash.
The £10 million was allocated to matter starts in both family and social welfare law in the last six months of last year by the LSC. The LSC argues that the explanation for the seemingly unfair distribution of the money is due to its ‘indicative spend formula’ which it says seeks to rectify the uneven pattern of spending across the country.
We do not know if the indicative spend formula is fair as it has not been piloted or independently verified. Even if it had been, these figures still illustrate the bizarre postcode lottery that operates in allocating legal aid funds. The recession is hitting these areas the hardest. This is illustrated by the unemployment figures which show that it is the poorest areas that are losing the most jobs. It would seem that they are also missing out on the extra legal aid needed to tackle the problems unemployment brings in its wake.
One of the main issues with legal aid services is that the pattern of provision was largely set over the last 30 years by firms choosing to set up practices, not surprisingly, where there was sufficient concentration of clients to make their businesses viable, which tended to mean urban areas. As far as not-for-profit provision goes, well-funded CABx, Law Centres® and other advice agencies tend to be sited in the same areas, those with large local authorities which have the cash to spend on advice services. When such services are available clients pursue their legal rights, but demand often outstrips supply, as the full waiting rooms of many advice agencies and solicitors illustrate.
Recent comments from the minister for legal aid, Lord Bach, indicate that the government now recognises that these services have been chronically under-funded over the years and do not cover every part of the country. The question LAG asks is does the government have the political will to establish a rational system of planning based on client needs and is it willing to find the necessary injection of cash to ensure that all of the country is covered by an adequate level of services?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)