Evidence submitted by Law Centres Federation
(LAR 104)
INTRODUCTION
The Law Centres Federation (LCF) is the national
body representing a network of community based Law Centres specialising
in social welfare law.
Law Centres are members of the not-for-profit
(NfP) sector. They employ solicitors who are regulated by the
Law Society's Solicitor Practice Rules. They employ lawyers and
paralegal staff who are experts on the areas of law they cover.
Law Centres promote equality and specialise in challenging discrimination
in all its forms using casework, as well as awareness-raising
of legal rights, and legal education to promote good practice.
They aim to improve the quality of life for the people living
in their catchment areas and for people nationally who share common
problems (communities of interest).
There are 58 Law Centres in England, Wales and
Northern Ireland with 63 outlets. In Scotland there is a separate
Scottish Association of Law Centres. Most Law Centres are based
in urban areas, but the catchment areas of Law Centres are expanding.
For example, the Law Centre in Carlisle covers the whole of Cumbria
and provides a mobile legal service to outlying towns.
All Law Centres have been awarded the Specialist
Level Quality Mark: 51 hold not-for-profit contracts with the
Legal Services Commission and seven have private practice contracts.
Their other main source of funding is from local authorities and
charities. Funding from local councils remains precarious and
has led to the closure of some Law Centres, for example Humberside
in 2005. The number of Law Centres has fluctuated at around 60
for the last 20 years.
Since they began in the late 1960s, Law Centres
have revolutionised civil non-family legal aid, developing and
testing new areas of law. They initiated new ways of providing
legal services, reaching out to local communities and demystifying
the law and its processes. Law Centres take a strategic approach
to providing services, combining expert advice and representation,
(including representation at tribunals), with working with community
groups to help empower local people to bring about lasting change.
The number of Law Centres declined during the
1980s but we have seen some growth since the launch of the Community
Legal Service. We welcome the opportunity to submit evidence to
the Committee. However, we fear that the proposals further threaten
the viability of Law Centre services, and could lead to many more
areas where there is no access to face-to-face specialist legal
services.
1. Is there a need to modernise the procurement
of legal aid?
1.1 The LCF questions whether it is appropriate
to adopt the market-based approach to publicly funded legal services.
For example, in guidance produced by the Treasury's Office of
Government Commerce,[38]
the benefits of procurement are balanced against potential drawbacks.
The issues highlighted cover the need for highly-skilled procurers
and contract managers; the possible distortion of the market,
and missing out on innovation. The paper observes, "Centrally
managed and large contracts may not be responsive to local needs",
"Large and complex contracts can often entail a lengthy and
costly procurement process." "It is possible for the
total cost of a consolidated procurement to exceed those that
would have been incurred if parts of the total requirement had
been procured separately.", "In most markets there is
a point at which it is no longer possible to exploit further economies
of scale" and finally with regard to specifications, "Unless
the critical requirements of all members are met
better
overall value for money in whole life terms may be achieved by
contracting separately."
1.2 In addition, in the European Union there
is a debate about distinguishing between "general interest"
public services and services of "general economic interest".
There is a concern that "subjecting public services to public
procurement rules will lead to a race to the bottom with private
providers seeking to cut costs, rather than invest in quality".[39]
In a paper published in May 2006[40]
the European Socialists Group reported on the importance of public
services. "High quality public serviceopen and transparent,
with equal access for allare essential elements in the
European model of society. Market forces alone cannot ensure the
public services we need." A report is expected in November
from the EU commission on general interest services.
In the Government's National Action Plan[41]
access to justice is listed along side access to education and
health as part of the UK's anti-poverty strategy. We believe that
legal services are "services of public interest" because
they are services where there is a wider public interest in their
availability, quality and accessibility.
1.3 Similar reservations were expressed
by the Legal Aid Board in 1995[42]
who said that although they welcomed the Lord Chancellor's commitment
to ensuring access to quality, value for money legal services,
they recognised the tensions between them. "We believe that
introducing competitive price tendering across the board without
proper exploration of the likely effects could put at risk the
delivery of legal aided services to the required level of quality."
The Board pointed out the "Patterns of provision, types of
providers and areas of need vary considerably and it is unrealistic
to assume that all other variables could be held constant so the
sole determining factor would be price. We do not think that we
could achieve the strategic objectives for the legal aid scheme
if this was the case."
1.4 In an article in the Law Society
Gazette[43],
Lord Carter spoke about the need for lawyers to be more efficient
and "be a little more in the 20th century". There are
considerations to take into account when looking at "efficiency"does
it only relate to the running of an individual case or is it also
about looking for the root causes of problems and looking strategically
at the best way of solving those problems not only for individuals
and their families, but for others in a similar position ? This
surely is also an "efficient" way of tackling problemsbecause
practitioners look to long-term solutionssolutions that
will save the taxpayer money. This is the point made by the Advice
Services Alliancethat the cart has been put before the
horsethe government needs to know what it wishes to buy
before it can impose blanket payment regimes.
1.5 Lawyers providing services in social
welfare law contribute to meeting other key objectives, such as
tackling social exclusion and promoting community cohesion.[44]
2. Is the timetable for implementation suggested
in Lord Carter's Report realistic?
2.1 The timetable for Law Centres is not
realistic. The proposal to introduce Unified Contracts, Peer Review
and Preferred Suppliers as well as standard fees in April 2007
seems at odds with Lord Carter's statement that he wants to have
a managed transition. These proposals together with the piloting
of Community Legal Advice Centres and Networks during this period
add to the difficulties being faced. For example, the three areas
chosen for CLACs are ones where there are already Law CentresLeicester,
Gateshead and recently Derby. This has in itself created excessive
work during the Summer to bid for the contracts, which they have
been obliged to do in order to carry on providing services.
2.2 Lord Carter has suggested that providers
should approach banks and other professional services to help
adapt to the new procurement arrangements. Law Centres and others
in the not-for-profit sector will find it hard to get this support.
Ironically, the one factor that banks are most likely to be interested
in is future financial security. Without private paying clients,
the sector has no similar security nor are there opportunities
to make the investments that are necessary. The future lies in
the hope of retaining and perhaps increasing the number of contracts
they have from the Commission. In particular, this will make it
very difficult for Law Centres to buy the necessary technology
required by the Commission to monitor cases. A grant programme
for private practice was recommended to help them restructure
as well as a match funded grant programme to help with information
technology. As this is to be administered by the Law Society,
it is not clear whether the not-for-profit sector will have access
to this fund. If not, this will not provide the level playing
field needed if there is to be a tendering process in 2009.
2.3 Law Centres with not-for-profit contracts
have not had the same experience as private practice solicitors
in managing standard fees. Solicitors firms have been operating
tailored fixed fees: the not-for-profit sector in general have
not. There must be equality between the sectors again if the tendering
is to be introduced.
2.4 It is also doubtful whether the Commission
will be ready to implement all the changes according to the timetable
proposed. If all the changes are to be introduced they need to
be phased in more slowly and evaluated at each stage.
2.5 The change in payment methods should
be deferred until peer review and the preferred supplier scheme
is bedded in. Further research on the determinants of case costs
in areas of social welfare law should be carried out with perhaps
the adoption of tailored fixed fees in the first instance to help
identify different types of cases. Law Centres, for example, provide
a specialist legal service taking referrals from other agencies,
where the case is complex and requires expert intervention. Their
case mix differs considerably from many other suppliers, particularly
from front-line generalist providers and they will naturally have
longer average case times.
3. Are there any benefits to be generated
for defendants and others by adopting these proposals?
3.1 As the proposals stand, it is difficult
to see how they will benefit ordinary people who seek legal advice
in social welfare law cases, and in particular how they will be
of benefit to those who experience harassment and discrimination.
We cannot comment on criminal legal aid, but the rushed plans
to implement changes in the delivery of civil legal aid work appear
to be ill thought out and could be detrimental, as illustrated
in the evidence submitted by the Advice Services Alliance.
What impacts/disadvantages could result from implementation?
3.2 The current gaps in provision are likely
to increase. The LCF has conducted a survey[45]
which show that from 10 returns:
Nine out of 10 Law Centres are turning
clients away.
Nine out of 10 are turning eligible
clients away.
All Law Centres believe that Lord
Carter's proposals will lead to further gaps in supply.
3.3 The proposals will potentially reduce
access to specialist legal services. This is because:
(a) There are disincentives to take on more
complex cases or cases for the most vulnerable people.
(b) Specialist skills will be undermined
by the pressure to conduct straightforward cases.
(c) Loss of expertise will be long-term.
It will discourage new lawyers from choosing civil legal aid work
as a career option.
(d) Strategic work to find long term solutions
to problems will be lost.
The proposals could seriously jeopardise the
progress that has been made by Law Centres during the past forty
years in terms of their innovative and strategic approach to service
provision and their accountability to the people they serve.
3.4 The proposals are likely to have a detrimental
effect on quality. Law Centres only spend the time that is needed
to achieve a positive outcome for their clients. The new funding
regime will make it more difficult for them to accept referrals
of complex cases. They will be forced to take on simpler cases
and those with less expertise will stop referring and struggle
to advise clients themselves. This will have a negative effect
on quality.
3.5 Research published in 2001[46]
should be referred to as it made a number of significant findings
and recommendations, including:
(a) It takes time to get good results, and
solicitors and advisers need a regime which allows for this.
(b) Pricing of contracts needs to consider
complicating factors such as appeal court/tribunal hearings, client
disabilities, risks to the client. "If such factors are not
monitored and properly factored into the commissioning costing
structure then contractees will effectively be incentivised to
target their work on cases that are less costly to themselves
and will damage access to particular cases as a result."[47]
"Solicitors had a higher percentage of matters
where there were no complicating factors (67%) compared to NfPs
(52%). NfPs were more likely to see clients who had a disability,
medical, health or psychological problems. They were also twice
as likely to have cases that were complicated by first instance
court or tribunal proceedings than solicitors."[48]
To illustrate this, a typical Law Centre reported
in September 2006:
"A high number of our clients
do not speak English well enough to attend without an interpreter.
We also have a high percentage of clients with learning disabilities,
mental health problems or drug or alcohol dependency. Some of
these attend with support workers but some come in on their own
in a very distressed or agitated state and we have to calm them
down before starting to deal with the current issue"
(c) The funding of representation[49]
under contract should be revisited in the light of positive outcomes
that can be achieved.
3.6 The proposal to discontinue Level One
work is a retrograde step. The ability to provide expert early
one-off advice is essential to providing a comprehensive service.
This work could be said to provide a "triage service",
a concept used in dealing with medical issues and more recently
by the Law Commission[50]
to describe diagnosing problems and determining priorities as
well as "signposting, oversight and intelligence gathering".
3.7 Level One work is about one-off pieces
of advice, often provided by phone. The suggestion is that the
advice given under these circumstances will have to be interpreted
as a new matter start. This increases bureaucracy. Those clients
who would have advice over the phone will now have to visit the
Law Centre. This will reduce access to services for, say, many
elderly or disabled clients. It will also reduce the availability
of employment advice for those with complaints about unfair practices
in the workplace.
3.8 In order to unify contracts, the ability
to carry out Level One work could be extended to the private sector.
4. What impact will the proposals have on
different communities (such as Black, Minority Ethnic and rural
communities)?
The proposals are likely to have detrimental
effect on those experiencing exclusion.
4.1 From the findings of the research[51]
mentioned above, the NfP sector has a higher percentage of vulnerable
clients. In a report by the DCA[52]
they recognise that, "vulnerable people need a greater level
of help, and good telephone or face-to-face advice is vitally
important. These people are often unable to engage effectively
with, and do not trust, the person or organisation with which
they have a dispute. Instead they are more likely to trust and
be willing to work with independent advice services."
The reduction in the number of suppliers
and the lack of specialist advice will disproportionately affect
vulnerable clients.
4.2 The LSC are committed to protecting
people's rights.[53]
Many vulnerable people experience discrimination, especially in
the workplace. This is an area of law where Law Centres have developed
their expertise and take up important cases that bring about lasting
change. A Law Centre with a private practice contract comments:
"At the Law Centre we've been operating
under the fixed fee system for the past year and we have to keep
a check on the kinds of cases we're taking on. For example, too
many time-intensive employment discrimination cases in one financial
year could have major financial consequences. So what do we dosend
people away? We're trying to protect against our services becoming
distorted by the fixed fee scheme but it's a struggle and we have
seen an impact. It's difficult to imagine private practice operating
the same concerns or protections. It is only natural that in carrying
out a business, they will opt for the easiest and most straightforward
source of profitalthough there may be some exceptions to
that general position, I can't imagine they'll be many. Particularly
given that any profit to be made has otherwise got to come from
`efficiency saving', we predict a significant impact on the most
vulnerable."
4.3 Law Centres believe that casework services
should be combined with strategic work in the community. Working
with groups and providing legal education is equally important
and enables Law Centres to reach the most vulnerable and socially
excluded people in society. Many vulnerable clients do not recognise
that they have a legal problem and need to be encouraged to seek
advice. The capacity to do this work has already been damaged
by casework targets. The new proposals will erode these services
even more as they provide disincentives to Law Centres. This is
because the clients that Law Centres seek to reach are those that
are likely to have the most complex and multi-faceted problems.
To apply market forces to outreach work that targets disadvantaged
people is not appropriate. Whilst outcomes in terms of monetary
benefit may be small, the subsequent advantage of resolving what
may be a small matter could be large, in terms of cascading problems
and later calls upon the public purse for support.
4.4 Law Centres are ideally placed to provide
the range of specialist legal services needed on discrimination
and human rights when the new Commission for Equality and Human
Rights is established next year. For example, LCF SORBAEE Project
(Sexual Orientation, Religion and Belief and Age Equality in Employment)
has provided training and support for Law Centres including resources
for Law Centres to run legal education and community awareness
projects around SORB (Sexual Orientation, Religion and Belief)
and Age in their local areas. Law Centres want to be there to
make sure everyone knows about their new rights and have the means
to protect those rights if need be.
4.5 The LCF is concerned about the impact
of any proposals to standardise the fees for disbursements. These
could have a discriminatory effect on people whose first language
is not English and against those with disabilities, such as the
availability of appropriate sign language facilities.
The inclusion of interpreting and translation
fees within the graduated fee scheme for work carried out under
contract in asylum cases does not take into account the wide range
of languages used in some of our communities, especially in poorer
areas and where there are new migrant populations.[54]
This could lead to organisations favouring English speaking clients
and cutting corners, perhaps by skimping on statement read-back
time or by using the interpreter only for statement taking and
not for advice giving, etc Others may rely on the client's friends
or family to interpret which can mitigate against the disclosure
of personal issues. Outside of London, interpreters of most languages
are less available and are therefore more expensive, as are those
who can offer interpretation services in relatively rare languages.
This may be seen as unfair because no similar proposal exists
for any other client group.
4.6 The proposal to eventually withdraw
the ability to do work under "tolerances" maybe a retrograde
step. A regional report from the LSC[55]
commented," Due to the partly rural make up of our region,
it is fair to say that tolerances play an important role in establishing
access to justice for a large number of clients." In Law
Centres, a considerable amount of discrimination work is carried
out under tolerences, where it falls outside of the contract area.
It is to be noted that there is no specific category of law for
discrimination work.
4.7 Part of the strategic approach taken
by Law Centres is to find solutions that will be of benefit to
many people. This can involve work with local authorities about
the difficulties people face when trying to access public services.
Many Law Centres work with their local councils on policy issues
that help promote equality and overcome any practices that could
be discriminatory. The new proposals could damage the work done
to improve local public services.
5. What impact will all or any of the recommendations
have on legal aid providers?
5.1 Independent research carried out by
LEGC for the Law Society[56]
found that more than 800 legal aid firms could be forced out of
business if the proposals are carried out. The Law Society's own
survey found that out of 400 civil legal aid practitioners, 95%
said that the introduction of fixed fees would mean the work would
no longer be viable, while nine out of 10 said the new pay rates
would make it unlikely they would be able to continue civil legal
aid work. The 7.2% decrease in the number of solicitors with general
civil contracts over the last two years has already placed a strain
on Law Centre services.[57]
5.2 The proposed fixed fees (except perhaps
for housing) will be devastating. A Law Centre says:
"Under the proposed contracting arrangements
we would be reduced not to cherry-picking the easier cases, but,
what is worse, dealing with all cases whether simple or not in
a routinised way, aiming to conclude it at the lowest and earliest
level compatible with having provided some kind of service. For
example, advising a client with disabilities that it would be
difficult to challenge a suitable offer of accommodation, rather
than actually challenging it; telling a client how to put in their
own appeal or review where doing it ourselves would have a far
better chance of success. Not so much cherry-picking the easier
cases, but, in one way or another, limiting the service provided
in the difficult cases."
This will not provide real access to justice.
There will be fewer opportunities to call providers of public
services to account. Without effective formal legal challenges
such as statutory request for reviews and appeals, the institution
is under no pressure to change, and cannot be challenged by judicial
review as alternative remedies would not have been properly exhausted.
5.3 The LCF is very concerned about the
impact on immigration and asylum and asylum advice. Problems in
these areas give rise to and exacerbate other legal problems and
are an essential component of common problem clusters.[58]
The proposal to have national and regional suppliers mirrors the
Home Office business plan for new asylum-seekers, however, new
asylum seekers are a very small proportion of those requiring
immigration and asylum advice. The plans seem to ignore the complex
needs of the vast majority of immigration and asylum clients and
will jeopardise the concept of providing a holistic service.
5.4 The DCA's Department Report for 2005-06
sites "Rights" as one of their three key functions.
In the chapter, "Protecting Individual Rights" it states
that the DCA remain focused on protecting the vulnerable and socially
excluded. Asylum seekers and those seeking asylum support are
some of the most vulnerable and excluded members of society and
should be considered along with the other priority groups referred
to in the report.
5.5 It is difficult to know what types of
contracts will be available to Law Centres[59].
A very wide variety of cases are undertaken at the moment and
there are very few small cases (especially in asylum). A high
number of clients are from the BME communities[60]
and a reduction in access to the full range of immigration advice
services could be discriminatory. The graduated fees being offered
are too low and many suppliers of immigration advice and representationin
both the private and NfP sectors are considering whether they
can continue this work.
6. How will the proposals affect firms\Law
Centres of different size, structure and practitioner mix?
6.1 The intended pace of change makes it
difficult to foresee the future. As specialist providers, there
is the danger, as outlined above, that skills will be undermined
by being forced to undertake the routine casework previously carried
out by generalists.
6.2 The introduction of Community Legal
Advice Centres places a strain on local agencies. The government
aims on the one hand to create "one stop shops", however,
the process of competitive tendering can drive a wedge between
providers. This can lead to even fewer referrals as each will
want to maximise their potential as the main supplierthe
CLAC. The process of merging with other agencies is complex, as
illustrated by NCVO's[61]
and Charity Commissioner's guidance. The issue of how for profit
and not for profit organisations could merge or form consortiums
is still subject to Law Society regulations.[62]
Sub contracting will bring additional dilemmas such as issues
of identity, accountability and management. There is a concern
that all of these changes will detract from the key objective
of providing services to clients.
6.3 The LCF has welcomed Lord Carter's recommendation
that the LSC should carefully evaluate the impact of the transition.
The introduction of CLACs will have a devastating impact on organisations
in the area that are unsuccessful and will as a result, have their
contracts with the LSC terminated. Combined with the inability
to apply for new contracts this year to meet new needs, there
is considerable anxiety throughout the sector. All of the proposed
changes hamper the planning of future service provision.[63]
The uncertainty about future funding could have a knock on effect
with local authority funders, charities and other funders that
will look for stability and sustainability in those they support.
7. Will the measures proposed promote the
provision of high quality advice and support the effective and
efficient operation of the Justice System?
7.1 If the measures produce a national network
of suppliers who have the skills and experience to provide the
full range of legal services to all those who have been treated
unfairly and who are disadvantaged, the measures will prove to
be a success. However, we have some serious reservations which
we have outlined above.
7.2 The system must be independent of vested
interests and be flexible enough to cope with new challenges.
The use of telephone advice cannot be relied upon to fill gaps
in provision. The option of face-to-face advice must be available
especially for the most vulnerable and socially excluded. Changes
in legislation will always have a big impact on the demand for
services. It will be interesting in the coming months to see how
the system copes with possible high influx on enquiries and cases
on age discrimination. It is one thing to create and advertise
new rights, but another to provide the legal and advice services
needed to respond effectively to new demands.
The LCF hopes that the measures will allow
for an expansion of Law Centres and that they will be able to
continue with their specialist casework services and their work
to empower and help educate local communities.
7.3 Overall, the LCF believes that the proposed
changes, rushed through, have enormous potential to create a worse
system for provision of social welfare law than that which currently
exists and has some potential to destroy meaningful access to
justice altogether for the most vulnerable people. We urge extreme
caution and a far more prudent approach than is currently proposed.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Publicly funded legal services should
not be considered suitable for the operation of market forces.
Legal services, targeting the vulnerable and socially excluded
are a public service with a much wider public interest.
2. Any changes should be phased in more
slowly and evaluated at each stage. The introduction of standard
fees should be deferred until the Preferred Supplier scheme is
established.
3. The NfP sector should be given financial
assistance to adapt to the new proposals and to purchase the required
software.
4. Research and analysis should be carried
out into the types of cases undertaken in social welfare law;
the types of clients helped; the case mix of different providers
and the factors that are linked to different case lengths. We
support the recommendation made by ASA that this should be a joint
exercise between the LSC and representative bodies, including
the LCF, whose members carry out complex casework and focus on
discrimination issues.
5. Legal aid for representation at Employment
Tribunals should be considered. This could be limited to complex
cases; cases where there are discriminatory issues and to cases
where the client is unable to represent themselves. There is an
expectation that employees will be challenging their employers
on age discrimination in the coming year. This could lead to the
new rights being illusionary without access to experts to test
the law and represent their interests.
6. Alternatives to the existing proposals
should be considered. ASA has listed these as: tailored fixed
fees, high fee levels; more categories of fees; graduated fees
and special provision for niche organisations.
7. The proposals to remove level one work
and ultimately to discontinue work under tolerance should be reconsidered.
8. The plans to centralise the provision
of both immigration and asylum suppliers should be reconsidered.
9. The LCF supports ASA's final recommendation
that further research and debate needs to takes place before any
changes are made to the allocation of funding for social welfare
law between the regions.
October 2006
38 Aggregation-Is bigger always better? Office of Government
Commerce at the Treasury. Back
39
Press Release from EuroActiv 12 September 2006 "Parliament
demands clarity on public services". Back
40
Call for European Legal Framework for Public Services. Political
groups within the Parliament's Economic Affairs Committee reached
an agreement on the report on 12 September 2006. Back
41
UK national Action Plan on Social Exclusion 2003-05 p 42. The
plan outlines the most important issues for the UK in the fight
against poverty and social exclusion. Back
42
Now the "Legal Services Commission". View expressed
in it's response to the Conservative Government's consultation
paper, "Legal Aid-Targeting Need". November 1995. Back
43
Law Society Gazette article "Eye of the Storm"
7 September p 24. Back
44
Advice services have a role in helping to reduce the likelihood
of criminal activities as well as improving the health of citizens. Back
45
Copy of the survey attached. The study was conducted by LCF in
September 2006. Ten of the 58 Law Centres responded in time to
be included in the survey. Back
46
Quality and Cost Final Report on the Contracting of Civil, Non-Family
Advice and Assistance Pilot. The research was commissioned by
the Legal Services Commission and carried out by Richard Moorhead,
Prof Avrom Sherr and Lisa Webley 2001. Back
47
Ibid page 97 Summary and Conclusions of Profiles of Contract Times.
Section 4.70 concludes that time is driven by a complex set of
factors and is not susceptible to a single paradigmatic description.
This renders competitive tendering for contracts unsafe since
it would be difficult to ensure that all appropriate drivers were
taken into account. Back
48
Ibid page 74 Section 3.173. Back
49
This refers to representation before tribunals where it was been
proved that representation improves the chances of success. See
Hazel Genn "Representation at Tribunals" 1989. Also
see "Tribunals for Diverse Users" Hazel Genn and others.
DCA Research Series 1/06 January 2006. This paper confirms that
in some cases representation may be crucial to substantive fairness. Back
50
Law Commission Issues Paper "Housing: Proportionate dispute
Resolution". July 2006. p 43. Back
51
Quality and Cost 2001. Back
52
Getting earlier, better advice to vulnerable people published
in March 2006 Back
53
LSC's Corporate Plan 2005-06 to 2007-08. "Legal aid provided
for the purpose of protecting people's rights is fundamental to
the Government's compliance to the European convention on Human
Rights, particularly the right to a fair trial." Back
54
In "Legal Aid: A Sustainable Future", the LSC suggest
in 8.41 that providers should take the lead in securing good value
services and to reward providers who employ bilingual or multi-lingual
caseworks and/or have in house language services." July 2006. Back
55
Regional Contracting Strategy for the North East 2005. Back
56
Survey conducted on behalf of the Law Society and published on
26 September 2006. "Legal Aid Reforms" Proposed by the
Carter Report-Analysis and Commentary by Peter Grindley. Back
57
Law Society Press Release 26 September 2006. Back
58
Clusters of problems were first identified in Paths to Justice
by Hazel Genn in 1999. Causes of Action: Civil Law and Social
Justice published by the Legal Services Research Centre in 2004.
p 40. The third cluster they identified was immigration, mental
health and welfare benefits. 39% of immigration problems were
reported in combination with a welfare rights problem. Back
59
This makes future planning very difficult and may be contrary
to Compact agreed by the Treasury, "Improving Financial Relationships
with the Third Sector: Guidance to Funders and Purchasers."
May 2006 p 22. Law Centres and others in the NfP sector will not
all be granted three year contracts on 1 April 2007. Some will
be subject to the establishment of CLACs and other to the centralisation
of immigration and asylum contracts. Back
60
LSC Equalities Annual Report 2002-03 Table on page 6 showed that
91% of BME clients were helped in Immigration-Asylum cases and
91.5 in Immigration-Non-Asylum. Back
61
CVO's Collaborative Working Unit has published guidance on mergers.
www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/collaborativeworkingunit Back
62
Lord Carter's Legal Aid: A market approach to reform. Chapter
3, p 63 point 95. With reference to the single legal entity "this
could involve a number of private practitioners and the not for
profit sector, but this will be subject to the pace of legal services
reform and the necessary changes in regulations by the Law Society." Back
63
This instability of funding could also be subject to Compact as
mentioned previously. Back
|