Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs Written Evidence


Evidence submitted by Citizens Advice, Child Poverty Action Group and London Advice Services

  By statute, the LSC is committed to developing a Community Legal Service (Access to Justice Act 2000) intended to ensure "that every community has access to a comprehensive network of legal service providers of consistently good quality". The CLS extends to all services holding the LSC quality mark, but was established to provide a "seamless service" from basic advice through to specialist help—in other words the CLS is predominantly a network of generalist agencies which may access more specialist services for eligible (legally aided) clients.

  Specialist support enables frontline advisers to see more clients because they can spend less time on complex cases with specialist assistance, as well as recognising cases without merit and not taking them forward unnecessarily.

  Specialist support is a highly successful and much-needed scheme. It increases access to high quality advice and represents value for money. There is a demand for this service by front-line advisers and it adds significant value to the advice giving process. We believe that the Government should press the LSC to reconsider their decision to withdraw specialist support funding.

  Specialist support provides expert help in all areas of social welfare law to front-line advisers in Citizens Advice bureaux, solicitors' firms, law centres, and advice agencies. It gives advice on complex one-off queries, and provides support with casework and training.

  The LSC have decided to terminate all specialist support contracts contrary to its corporate priorities and its proposals for the Community Legal Service to:

    —  ensure clients have access to quality services—specialist support enables and ensures that the client has access to the highest quality of advice;

    —  ensure a more holistic approach to advice—the specialist support enables front-line services to provide a more holistic service giving access to advice on complex issues across several areas of law which would not otherwise be available to the client; and

    —  focus on categories of law that have the greatest impact upon those who face poverty, disadvantage or exclusion—these are the areas covered by the SSP.

  The decision is also contrary to the LSC's own evidence. In its 2004 evaluation of specialist support the LSC stated that the scheme provides access to quality advice services. In line with DCA targets it was found to provide quick, early and accessible information for vulnerable and socially excluded individuals. The LSC's evaluation accepted that specialist support services achieve this at an acceptable cost, utilising economies of scale while not compromising on quality. In this context the decision to withdraw all funding from July 2006 is very surprising. In addition, the LSC's report on specialist support to Fundamental Legal Aid Review stated there is a need for specialist support and highlighted that demand will rise.

QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE LSC DECISION TO TERMINATE SPECIALIST SUPPORT CONTRACTS AS OF JULY 2006

Consultation and the Decision-Making Process

    —  What materials were before the commissioners when they reached their decision, in particular were the consultation paper and responses and the top-slice report before them?

    —  What evidence is there that specialist support is no longer needed and what analysis have you done on the likely effects of your decision to cut specialist support?

    —  Do you agree that the more than 8 of the 19 contract holding organisations would have responded to the consultation if it had been made clear that the total withdrawal of funding was a possible outcome?

    —  Why did the LSC decide not to consult the Law Society, the Bar Council, or any of the frontline organisations which depend on specialist support before making its decision?

    —  Beyond the 19 contract holding organisations did which organisations/individuals did the LSC consult before making the decision?

    —  How far through the decision making process was the LSC when the consultation was issued?

Consequences of the LSC's Decision

    —  Where are people who got expert help in the past through accessing specialist support going to get expert help once specialist support has gone?

    —  What account have you made of the large amount of time front-line advisers save by using specialist support, as evidenced in the Pilot Evaluation Report at paragraph 2.24?

    —  Surely the important thing is for a member of the public to get the correct advice, rather then just having access to advice per se. Are the LSC not prioritising quantity over quality by directing money at front-line services whilst withdrawing access to the expertise to deal with the most difficult cases?

    —  One specialist support provider recently took a call from a local CAB in need of urgent specialist debt advice relating to a client who had turned up with a warrant for committal to prison for seven days for failing to attend court in a debt case. The advice was needed instantly and no-one in the bureau had any idea of what to do. Is that kind of instant specialist advice going to be available to front line staff after the specialist support service has ended and if so how?

    —  One of the assertions made by the LSC has been that agencies with a Specialist Quality Mark should not need specialist support, as they are "specialists". Does that also apply to organisations with a General Help With Casework Quality Mark which increasingly access the service?

    —  Has the LSC compared the likely "outcomes" of a client accessing legal advice that has a second tier support service, to one that has not?

The Role of the LSC

    —  How does your decision fit with your first corporate priority, as set out in your Corporate Plan, of ensuring your clients have access to quality services?

    —  With the current model, advice workers and solicitors have access to the best practitioners in the various fields of law all year round for advice and training. How do you propose to improve on this model?

    —  Was it not precipitous to terminate the specialist support contracts while the broader review of the proposed reforms to the CLS was still ongoing?

    —  Is it not a huge waste of public money to pilot a scheme for three years, carry out a thorough evaluation and award three year contracts based on that evaluation and then cut the service?

    —  What has changed since those contracts were awarded?

    —  Are you expecting front-line advisers and solicitors to acquire the same level of knowledge as attained by legal professionals and organisations like Shelter, CPAG and JCWI?

    —  Is the LSC aware that CLS Direct themselves use specialist support—indicating the need for specialist support?

    —  If the LSC's model of CLACs and CLANs is to work, there must be a period of transition between the current system and the new models. Is there not a potential role for a specialist support service during this transition?

    —  You state in Appendix 2 to the Top Slice Review that "If there is a need for specialist support, we must revisit what we are purchasing at a specialist level and investigate why the gap in expertise exists". Would it not therefore have been sensible to have investigated this before cutting specialist support and creating an even bigger gap in access expertise?

Citizens Advice, Child Poverty Action Group and London Advice Services

February 2006





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 14 March 2006