Further supplementary evidence submitted
by the Legal Services Commission (LAR 230a)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Department for Constitutional Affairs
and the Legal Services Commission are leading a radical reform
of legal aid over the next three years. These reforms will bring
significant changes to the way the LSC administers legal aid and
to its relationships with providers of legal aid services.
1.2 The reforms support our ongoing drive
to improve the delivery of legal services to vulnerable and low-income
people throughout England and Wales. In 2005-06 more than 2 million
people were provided with legal advice, assistance and representationmore
than at any point since 2000. This included over 700,000 new cases
of early legal advice through the Community Legal Service and
more than 1.6 million new criminal cases through the Criminal
Defence Service. (Note: these figures exclude immigration cases,
which are covered by a separate budget.)
1.3 We know these results make a very real
difference to people's lives and are only possible with the hard
work and dedication of the solicitors' firms and advice agencies
who advise and represent clients.
1.4 However, the growing expectations and
pressures on the legal aid system mean that fundamental reform
is essential if the system is to remain sustainable. We support
the move to a best value market for legal aid as recommended by
Lord Carter and believe that moving to fixed fee mechanisms is
a desirable and necessary step to achieve this.
1.5 We and the DCA listened carefully to
the views expressed during last summer's consultation on Lord
Carter's recommendations and have made a number of changes to
the timing and content of the schemes as a result. The reforms
that the Lord Chancellor and the Legal Services Commission announced
in "Legal Aid Reform: the Way Ahead" on 28 November
2006 included these changes (see Appendix 1 for a summary). We
are continuing to engage with our providers, for example by holding
further consultations on family fee schemes and the new boundary
areas for police station work, which are under way.
1.6 The changes included in "the Way
Ahead" should also be seen in the context of the other changes
that are taking place in criminal and civil legal aid. These include
the Community Legal Service strategy, the Family Legal Aid strategy
(published on 1 March), the roll-out of the LSC's Preferred Supplier
scheme and the recent introduction of means testing in magistrates'
courts.
1.7 Taken together, these reforms are aimed
at securing high quality and specialist advice and representation
to meet clients' needs at a price that represents good value for
the taxpayer and reasonable rates for providers. Legal aid, like
any public service, has to live within the budget set by government
and deliver value for money.
1.8 The recent introduction of means testing
has already made an important step in this direction, ensuring
that those who can pay, will pay. This will save the taxpayer
an estimated £35 million a year. Early indications show that
we are on course to achieve this. Since 2 October 2006, over 221,000
applications have been received and processed. 86% have received
funding. We have received 996 hardship appeals (less than 0.5%
of applications) of which 15% have been granted. In the first
21 weeks, HMCS processed more than 83% of applications within
two days and work is ongoing to improve this. Some adjustments
have already been made to respond to early concerns expressed
about the way the system was operating. These have extended Early
Cover, relaxed partners' signature requirements, simplified application
forms, revised custody evidence requirements and enhanced the
IT system. A post implementation review will be undertaken in
May 2007.
1.9 We are committed to working with our
stakeholders and partners to improve efficiency across the wider
justice system. It is important that potential pressures and risks
which could affect the effective delivery and cost-effectiveness
of legal aid are identified and addressed, and to help the process
the DCA and the LSC have just held their first quarterly stakeholders
meeting. The Legal Aid Impact Test has built upon and formalised
previous arrangements to ensure that the impact on the legal aid
budget is consistently taken into account when collective agreement
is sought for introducing new government policies and legislation.
It is also Important that the costs associated with particular
aspects and needs of judicial processes are correctly attributed
to the bodies involved (who have their own budgets) and not charged
to legal aid by default.
2. TIMING OF
REFORMS
2.1 Written Committee question 12 dated 8
February: Will the LSC be able to comply with the timetable published
in Legal Aid Reform: the Way Ahead?
We are able to implement the timetable as outlined
in Legal Aid Reform: the way ahead. This timetable was subject
to careful consideration during consultation to ensure that it
reflected as accurately as possible the concerns of practitioners,
whilst remaining achievable for the LSC. We made crucial changes
to the proposed implementation of reforms to reflect providers
concerns and give as much time as possible for them to adapt,
such as pushing back the introduction of fixed fees for police
station work and moving forward the date suggested by Lord Carter
for the introduction of Best Value Tendering in this area.
However, the current timetable is not set in
stone. We are yet to consult on the detail of crucial aspects
of the reform programme including, for example, the process for
tendering legal aid work in the police station. We will only take
the final decision on each stage of implementation of the reforms
once the necessary consultation has been undertaken and the views
of consultees fully considered.
2.2 Question raised in evidence sessions:
Why doesn't the LSC delay the implementation of the civil proposals
until after the crime proposals have been implemented?
Fundamental change is required in civil as well
as in crime. Delaying civil reforms for several years whilst crime
changes are implemented would do nothing for sustainability in
the interim. In civil, unlike in crime, we are not seeking to
reduce expenditure. But we do need to contain expenditure and
prevent the current trend of growth, which poses a threat to future
services. For example, there was an overall increase in expenditure
on public law children cases of nearly £37.5 million between
2004-05 and 2005-06. Counsel's fees accounted for £12.4 million
of this (an increase of 20.4%) and solicitors' fees £18.5
million (an increase of nearly 11%).
Best value tendering in civil is essential for
securing consistent access to the full range of quality-assured
services, so there is good reason to move towards this with fixed
and graduated fees as swiftly as possible as a precursor to best
value tendering.
The current schemes need to be changed in the
short term in any event. For example, in social welfare law, solicitor
providers already operate under a fixed fee scheme (Tailored Fixed
Fees). This scheme, introduced in 2004, was explicitly intended
as a stepping-stone to more standard fees. It would be difficult
to justify maintaining the Tailored Fixed Fee schemebased
as it is on individual firms' performance in 2003-04without
radical overhaul. 22% of mental health providers have also been
working under this scheme (see paragraph 5.2)
In family private help work, a pilot has already
been carried out for the introduction of fixed fees and the new
scheme will build on this work.
In immigration, it is important that the payment
system is changed to match the developments occurring in the wider
system, such as the roll out of the New Asylum Model. The fee
scheme will also provide opportunities to reduce bureaucracy for
providers by, for example, reducing their need to apply to the
LSC for extensions.
3. ACCESS TO
CIVIL LEGAL
AID
3.1 Clearly, there must be sufficient skilled
practitioners to provide civil legal aid services where clients
need them. However access is about the numbers of people helped,
and the way in which they use those services, rather than the
number of provider organisations.
3.2 The CLS helped more people last year
than at any time since its inception despite falls in the total
number of providers with contracts from 5,461 in 2000 to 4,000
in 2006. This growth has continued in 2006-07.
3.3 There has been a small decline in the
number of certificates issued in non-family civil. However we
have also seen rising numbers of people helped overall:
NUMBER OF NEW CIVIL LEGAL HELP MATTER STARTS
ACHIEVED THROUGH FACE-TO-FACE AND DIRECT SERVICES (EXCLUDING IMMIGRATION)
2000-01 TO 2005-06
Year |
2003-04 |
2004-05 |
2005-06 |
2006-07 forecast |
Number of new matter starts (face-to-face) |
589,329 |
568,091 |
634,885 |
679,900 |
Number of new matter starts (CLS Direct) |
(CLS Direct founded in July 2004) |
20,000 |
73,625 |
100,000 |
Total |
589,329 |
588,091 |
708,510 |
779,900 |
Figures 2003-06 taken from LSC Annual Reports, 2006/7 based on LSC contracting data
NUMBER OF CERTIFICATES ISSUED 2003-04 TO 2005-06 (ALL CATEGORIES)
Year | 2003-04
| 2004-05 | 2005-06
| 2006-07 forecast |
Certificates issued | 160,930
| 154,648 | 155,065 | 153,737
|
Data from LSC Annual Reports, 2006-07 based on LSC management
information
3.4 Written Committee question 1b dated 21 February: The
Committee was warned by some witnesses that there might have been
instances of double counting of acts of assistance where an act
of assistance by means of CLS Direct has led to a subsequent provision
of face-to-face advice. Would these technically two acts of assistance
in the same case be counted as two rather than a single act? In
the latter case, what is the proportion of "double-counted"
acts of assistance?
If the same client made a call to CLS Direct and then went
for face-to-face advice, there would be two acts of assistance
recordedone telephone and one face-to-face. Our records
do not link up the two acts so we do not know how many such cases
there are. We have, however, provided separate figures for both
types of case and it is noteworthy that during the period of growth
of CLS Direct the number of face-to-face acts of assistance has
also grown from 560,031 in 2004-05 to 634,885 in 2005-06, with
about 680,000 expected this year.
The LSC has succeeded in increasing the number of acts of
assistance within the same budget by favouring value for money
bids.
3.5 Written Committee question 1a dated 21 February: Could
you provide the Committee with information about the geographical
spread, and the spread by contract category, of the legal help
acts of assistance and their increase?
The analysis for face-to-face acts of assistance is shown
in Appendix 2.
Clients require access to services in categories of law that
reflect the multiple problems that they face. Evidence shows that
current services are not organised in the best way to respond
to those multiple problems.
Fewer but larger providers can actually increase access by
offering more categories of law and by increasing access points
through flexible services such as outreachboth of which
become more sustainable with larger contract sizes.
Taking forward the approach to access set out in the CLS
Strategy will involve dividing England and Wales into fixed areas
(mainly at county/metropolitan level), setting quality and access
standards and commissioning volumes within that framework.
As the CLS Strategy envisages, competition could be a way
of improving access. Consider a typical historical pattern of
seven or eight family firms, based in the same two streets in
the centre of town, providing legal aid in family and one or two
other categories of law between them, and dealing with other questions
that come up as best they can through the present "tolerance"
rules. From the client's perspective this can provide less real
access and choice than five larger providers, linked up so that
client can access all social welfare categories as well as family,
with each provider running outreach sessions or maintaining offices
in the areas of town where the clients live. Managed competition
will facilitate these changes over time.
The LSC is developing corporate targets for 2007-08 that
will improve access. We will also publish transparent data on
access annually. These will enable the effect of the reforms to
be measured.
4. BEST VALUE
TENDERING
4.1 We are committed to the principle of best value tendering
and will be consulting on detailed proposals later this year.
Final decisions on the shape of the tendering process will be
made following consultation.
4.2 Best value tendering will set sustainable prices
and achieve the best possible value for money, maximising the
services we can deliver within the legal aid budget. This will
benefit clients and reassure the taxpayer. From the provider's
point of view there will be the advantage of an agreed price which
they have offered, and which they know they can meet while making
a profit. Anyone running a business finds uncertainty one of the
most difficult factors to deal with. This will be eliminated to
a very considerable extent.
4.3 For providers, best value tendering will also solve
some of the issues which most concern them, enabling them to factor
the costs of local conditions (eg waiting at court or the police
station) and national policies (eg new legislation) into their
bids.
4.4 By allowing the market to set the rates for legal
aid work, through transparent tendering processes, we will be
sure that we arrive at the best prices for the services we purchase.
It is possible that prices could increase in some, limited, areas
as a result of tendering, but where that were the case we would
be forced to increase prices administratively (or lose services)
in any event. We believe it is most unlikely that there will be
a general price increase. We will be extremely vigilant to avoid
the possibility of cartels forming and manipulating prices upwards.
If best value tendering were nevertheless to lead to overall significant
increases, we would have to pay these rates. That would inevitably
give rise to offsetting cuts elsewhere, but we should stress that
this is extremely unlikely.
4.5 Written Committee question 8a dated 8 February: The
Committee was told of considerable concerns about the effect of
Best Value Tendering on the legal aid supplier base. What market
management measures is the LSC considering to put in place to
ensure that once competitive tendering takes place, a sufficiently
high level of competition for future bid rounds can be maintained
and that new suppliers can and will enter the steady state market?
(i) Crime
Best value tendering will be introduced from October 2008.
We are committed to actively engaging with providers, as well
as with economists, procurement specialists, academics and other
government departments to shape our proposals for cases at Police
Station, Magistrates Court and Crown Court. This will help to
ensure that we create a scheme that delivers a sustainable criminal
legal aid system.
One of our design parameters will be to ensure that healthy
competition is achieved which incorporates new market entrants
in all roll out areas both in the first round and future rounds
of BVT.
(ii) Civil
We believe that the proposed flexibility in contracting arrangements
will enable competition to be maintained. We will be able to address
demand for services through competitionie in areas with
few services the volume may be lower and the price per case could
be higher, thus leading to a more coherent and consistent pattern
of access.
In some urban areas there are many providers, very close
together. Full service for all clients could be maintained with
fewer providers in those areas, taking account of the requirements
of particular client groups. This would give scope for enhancing
service in areas where there are currently fewer providers, thus
benefiting access overall.
Because providers will be bidding to meet a service specification,
competition can improve services to priority groups. For example,
it can ensure that providers commit to deliver more accessible
services into the heart of excluded communities.
(iii) Future bid rounds
The LSC recognises the need to ensure there is healthy competition
for work in the initial and subsequent tendering rounds and that
new entrants can come through and participate in subsequent rounds.
We will ensure that we tender in a way which ensures firms
are keen to compete for attractive packages of work. Tender rules
can also be used to maintain effective competition, for example:
by ensuring that firms cannot abuse dominant positions
in the market or engage in collusive practices; and
in civil, allowing smaller providers to come together
under a "lead provider" to bid for a block of work.
Transaction costs would be reduced for all concerned, because
the LSC would be dealing with and managing one contract, and having
sub contractors would help maintain diversity of supply and leave
a pool of providers ready to bid in the next bid round.
In subsequent bid rounds, competition might therefore include
bids from:
those who had won contracts in the previous round;
the pool of sub contractors;
practitioners that propose to split off from current
contract holders;
current legal aid providers from outside the area.
They could be in a neighbouring area or a national organisation
used to flexible working. For example, the Immigration Advisory
Service and the Refugee Legal Centre, two national organisations
providing immigration and asylum advice, have opened up new offices
to address supply shortages in areas that previously had limited
advice provision; and
other providers of legal services. For example,
solicitor providers with a private family law department could
bid to carry out legal aid family work. Larger contracts with
greater certainty of income will be needed to make the process
attractive to such providers.
The LSC will be working up detailed arrangements for best
value tendering with economic advisers, and one of the principal
design aims will be the delivery and maintenance of competitive
markets. We will be publishing proposals on how to take forward
best value tendering later in the year.
4.6 Written Committee question 8b dated 8 February: With
the LSC having to produce detailed operational plans for implementing
the reforms and delivering administrative changes, what are your
working assumptions for the number of suppliers likely to a) bid
for BVT contracts and b) get BVT contracts?
There are no working assumptions yet regarding the number
of crime firms that may bid or the optimum number of firms that
will receive contracts after bidding. Again, much will depend
on our work over the coming months with design specialists. We
want the optimum number to produce healthy competition, and do
not want to be constrained by setting a specific number of firms
ahead of this scoping work.
Detailed plans, criteria or a timetable have not yet been
produced for the roll out of best value tendering for civil work.
It is therefore too early to set out expected numbers of bids
and contracts as this will depend on the criteria adopted.
5. FIXED FEES
5.1 Throughout this section we use the term "fixed
fees" as shorthand for a range of fee mechanisms: simple
fixed fees with an escape for more complex cases (eg fixed fees
for civil legal advice); graduated fees which are determined by
objective criteria related to the case (eg criminal graduated
fee scheme for advocates); and standard fees where payments are
fixed in bands related to the work actually done on the case (eg
standard fees for magistrates' court cases).
5.2 There is clear evidence that fixed fees help prevent
the upward drift of costs per case. In the tailored fixed fee
scheme 22% of mental health providers, dealing with over 40% of
cases, have been working under fixed fees, while others opted
out. In 2005-06 average case costs for those in the scheme stayed
flat while those outside the scheme rose by 5%.
5.3 Increases in average case costs directly threaten
services to clients. Within a fixed budget, the more we pay per
case, the fewer people we can help.
5.4 Written Committee question 3 dated 8 February: In relation
to national fixed fees, a significant concern is that these fixed
fees do not take account of very good reasons why average costs
between firms may differ significantly. Your reforms work on the
assumption that these differences are only attributable to differences
in efficiencies between firms. What research has the DCA or the
LSC done to establish whether factors other than efficiency may
account for differences in average costs?
The "true" price of publicly funded services cannot
be established by reference to historical hourly rates, or the
cost of private work, or even payments made by other areas in
government. It can only be achieved by competitive bid rounds,
which establish the price at which providers are prepared to provide
the access and quality required.
There are many factors driving differential prices in legal
aid. Whilst one can look at predictors, there would be too many
factors (including behaviour of the individual practitioner or
court) to identify them all in a simple way.
The LSC's analysis of costs claimed by child care providers
in 2004-05 (see Appendix 3) shows that factors such as local authority
area, client profile (by ethnic grouping and gender) or use of
counsel, do not on the face of it explain the large differences
in costs between providers.
Similarly the work carried out by Professors Cape and Moorhead
for the LSC shows the difficulty in tying down exactly what the
cost drivers are and, more important, their relative impact.
No amount of research will mean that we would arrive at the
"right" price for legal aid. If provider A is able to
compete and provide the same service to the same quality as provider
B at a lower price, then the right price for the tax payer and
the legal aid system as a whole is that of provider A.
5.5 Written Committee question 5 dated 8 February: In his
evidence, Richard Collins indicated that there had been an evaluation
of whether cherry picking was a risk through looking at data for
TFF.
(a) Could you provide the Committee with that evaluation?
Is that evaluation confined to matrimonial cases?
There is no evidence that the introduction of fixed and standard
fees results in cherry picking. As part of the preparation for
the replacement TFF scheme announced in "Legal Aid Reform:
the Way Ahead", the LSC carried out an evaluation of case
matter types, end points and client ethnicity/gender pre and post
the introduction of TFF.
This analysis is attached as Appendix 4, The Impact of Tailored
Fixed Fees on Case Mix. It relates to categories covered by the
TFF replacement scheme: housing, debt, welfare benefits, actions
against the police, clinical negligence, community care, consumer,
education, employment and personal injury. The evaluation showed
no significant changes after the introduction of TFF. (The evaluation
does not cover matrimonial cases, which will be the subject of
separate proposals.)
Similarly, the introduction of two standard fees and one
non-standard fee in magistrates' courts in 1993 did not result
in any evidence of cherry picking. This is not surprising as fee
structures have been designed with an element of graduation, including
bands and escapes which balance the benefits of fixed pricing
with the need to reward providers fairly for the work they have
done. Even where a single fixed fee is proposed, as for police
station work, the escape coupled with a contractual obligation
for Duty Solicitors to take all dispatched cases, are designed
to reduce the risk of cherry picking.
(b) Does the LSC generally monitor the case mix
of under the current TFF scheme and react to sudden significant
changes in a firms case mix? If so, how does the case mix monitoring
work? Has the move to mandatory TFF in 2005 led to a noticeable
change in case mix/remuneration levels of firms?
As part of ongoing management of the TFF scheme, the history
of a provider's case mix is actively monitored and any trend towards
cherry picking is addressed. For example, firms that reduced their
claimed costs to more than 20% below the fixed fee levels had
those fees reduced, unless they could show that the reduction
was for good reason. Reductions would therefore be made to the
fees of firms that changed their profile to cherry pick only shorter
cases.
The analysis of case-mix in Legal Help in The Impact of Tailored
Fixed Fees on Case Mix shows that in fact there have been no significant
changes since the introduction of Tailored Fixed Fees. The recent
LSC family help pilot has also shown no evidence of cherry picking.
(c) What does the LSC estimate to be the running
costs of a permanent case mix control system for the LSC?
Monitoring of case mix is just part of the contract management
process. It is therefore extremely difficult to estimate the cost
of running a case mix control separately, as in practice it will
be operated as part of a system of reports and other tools. This
system is intended to reduce expenditure and bureaucracy for both
providers and the LSC, concentrating on trends rather than intervention
in individual cases.
Any such system will therefore be significantly cheaper to
the LSC and less intrusive to providers than the alternatives
of individual cost assessment or sample based cost compliance
auditing for cases on hourly rates.
5.6 Written Committee Question 6 dated 8 February: Will
the unified contract contain anti cherry picking provisions? Will
it stipulate (a) a certain case mix for the holder of the contract
or (b) a percentage limit on the derogation from an individual
supplier's case mix in the previous year?
We have published the Standard Terms for the new Unified
Contracts this week. From April, we will monitor case mix and
average inputs (time spent). Providers that cherry pick only simple
cases will face contract sanctions, for example by amending the
number of cases that the contract authorises.
There is a specific prohibition against ceasing to act for
the client just because the fixed fee "limit" has been
reached. The provider is not required to refund the difference
if the case costs less than the fee. The fixed fee is an average,
based on the costs of the work that providers currently carry
out and overall, payment should be a reasonable reflection of
work done.
The Specification accompanying the fee schemes in October
will contain further provisions. There will be additional rules
preventing cases being refused on discriminatory grounds, or on
the basis that the costs in carrying out the work would exceed
the standard fee.
Within the new scheme, we would recognise that certain providers
will need to alter their case mix, where currently the majority
of their cases are "larger" than average, albeit that
this would be through accepting the smaller cases that present
themselves rather than refusing larger ones. That is partly for
these providers to remain financially viable under the new regime,
partly because clients should not be turned away just because
their problem is at an early stage and therefore capable of resolution
at less expense, and partly because we will expect other providers
to start taking on their proper share of the available larger
cases.
As the schemes become established we would tend to look for
deviation from a benchmark objective case mix profile (as opposed
to an individual supplier's previous profile) as being a signal
that further investigation of their behaviour is called for. One
of our contract management tools will be to restrict the number
of cases. This means that for example, firms that are found to
cherry pick simpler cases could find their schedules reduced to
80% of their previous year's level until they could be shown to
have changed behaviour.
5.7 Written Committee question 7 dated 8 February: Can
the LSC provide the Committee with information on how other jurisdictions
address the issue of case mix monitoring in a system of fixed
or graduated fees (eg in Scotland and some Canadian provinces)?
Has the LSC undertaken comparative research in this area?
We have not conducted detailed comparative research. However,
we have examined the Scottish scheme for the Sheriff's court and
taken the lessons there are to be learned.
5.8 Written Committee question 2 dated 21 February: The
new TFF Replacement Scheme has attracted criticism from legal
aid suppliers for its rigidity:
(a) While the new police station fixed fee scheme
envisages the introduction of locally sensitive fees, the TFF
Replacement Scheme fees are national and uniform. Why has the
LSC decided not to introduce regionally sensitive TFF replacement
fees?
Existing differentials in cost per case largely reflect the
length of time a provider spends on the case and not different
overheads in different parts of the country. The rationale for
the structures of the various civil fee schemes, including the
TFF replacement scheme, is explained in Appendix 5, Civil Fee
SchemesNational and Regional fees.
(b) While the revised magistrates' courts standard
fee scheme, which will cover travel and waiting costs, is intended
to be introduced in urban areas only, the TFF Replacement Scheme
fees will include travel and waiting costs nationally. Why this
difference in treatment where the social welfare law supplier
base appears to be much more precarious than the crime supplier
base?
Comparing magistrate's courts standard fees and TFF replacement
fees is not comparing like with like. In the former, the cases
by definition involve travelling to the court. In the TFF replacement
categories, in the overwhelming majority of cases the client will
travel to see the adviser. Further, our analysis shows no significant
difference between the costs in rural areas and urban areas in
the TFF replacement categories.
5.9 Written Committee question 3 dated 21 February: On
12 February, the LSC published consultation papers on the Police
Station Fixed Fee scheme. While outside the urban areas fees are
designed to be cost-neutral, the LSC intends to make savings of
£8 million in urban areas.
(a) How have the London police station fixed fees
been calculated to achieve the £3.2 million projected savings?
What will be the average reduction in fees for the boundary areas
listed in annexes B and C to the police station consultations?
A reduction of 8.3% has been applied to the average costs
of claims for 2005-06 in each boundary area; the resulting figures,
with an adjustment for escapes, provide the fixed fee for each
boundary area. The calculation assumes that volumes remain relatively
static and that the number of escape cases year on year do not
differ significantly.
The reduction in annex B is 12.2%. The reduction in annex
C is 8.3%, the London reduction mentioned above.
(b) What research has the LSC done to ensure that
the rate cuts can be absorbed by crime legal aid suppliers in
London and other major urban areas?
The reductions were recommended by Lord Carter as a result
of a year's intensive research, consideration and engagement with
legal aid providers and their representative bodies. These proposals
were then the subject of further extensive consultation by both
the LSC and the DCA. All these inputs were available to the LSC
and DCA when decisions were made following the consultation.
(c) Why does the LSC not propose to introduce a
police station fee scheme with fixed fees per attendance rather
than for a whole case, during which several attendances might
be warranted (eg for bail backs)?
The Commission currently pays for police station advice on
the basis of whole cases rather than separate attendances. The
Carter Review did not recommend any change from this. The average
costs of police station cases fall within a very narrow band and
therefore there is no rational reason to move to what would be
a more complex fee structure. In addition, basing the fee on the
whole case creates an incentive for all concerned to minimise
the number of attendances.
5.10 Written Committee question 5 dated 21 February: In
times where overall savings to the criminal legal aid budget are
considered to be inevitable, does not the rise in legal aid fee
levels even for the junior Bar sit uneasily with the proposals
for significant reductions of criminal legal aid pay for solicitors?
Why has it been proposed?
Changes made to the Advocates Graduated Fee Scheme stem from
the need to simplify the scheme and also to better remunerate
large cases better. In the Crown Court, advocates have been paid
by graduated fee in most cases for the last 10 years. This has
controlled spending, with a more significant impact on larger
cases than smaller ones. Advocates' payments were cut in October
2005, and Lord Carter took this into account when making his recommendations,
which were accepted by the DCA and the LSC.
6. QUALITY
6.1 The improvement in the quality of legal aid advice
and representation has been one of the biggest achievements of
the CLS and contracting over recent years. The introduction of
franchising, the Specialist Quality Mark (SQM) and initiatives
such as the immigration accreditation scheme are generally agreed
to have raised standards significantly.
6.2 The development of the independent peer review process,
managed by the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, builds on
these achievements by providing a direct measure of the quality
of legal advice and legal work.
6.3 Quality is at the heart of the reform proposals.
Contracts will only be awarded to providers that meet a strict
quality threshold. The LSC will use peer review to set a minimum
standard below which services will not be allowed to fall.
6.4 In civil we are raising the quality standard over
the next few years from peer review 3 (threshold competence) to
peer review 2 (competence plus), thus increasing the quality of
advice as we move into competition.
6.5 Criminal providers will be required to attain level
3 in order to take part in best value tendering from October 2008.
They are already required to demonstrate this level of competence
in order to retain a contract with the LSC, as part of our ongoing
drive towards quality. Crime providers will be required to demonstrate
level 2 (competence plus) to bid for the second round of best
value tendering.
6.6 It is not correct to say that high cost automatically
guarantees high quality or that high quality can only be achieved
by high cost. The data that the LSC has collected so far shows
that firms achieving peer review scores of 1 or 2 are on average
no more expensive than those scoring 3 (see Appendix 6, Peer Review
Quality and Cost Data).
6.7 There has been some concern expressed to the Committee
that peer review standards might be unachievable at the rates
paid for criminal legal aid work. This view is not supported by
the LSC's evidence. Level 3 is currently required of every provider
and in practice 80 to 85% of providers attain this level either
at first peer review or at a second peer review. Best value tendering
will in any event allow providers to factor in the cost of working
to a certain level of quality into the tender price.
7. DIVERSITY
7.1 The Legal Services Commission is very alive to its
statutory responsibilities to promote equality and diversity.
7.2 We have introduced changes recently to improve the
quality of the data that we are collecting on clients.
7.3 The new civil Unified Contract to be introduced from
April 2007 gives significantly greater emphasis to diversity issuesAs
well as including a requirement for providers to comply with equalities
legislation, it also makes direct discrimination (for example
by turning away BME clients) a fundamental breach of contract.
7.4 From October 2007, we are introducing new requirements
in the General Criminal Contract which will require all providers
not to discriminate unlawfully and to put in place an effective
equality and diversity policy, training and communication plan.
In addition we are looking at ways to enable small providers to
come into the system, which will also benefit BME-owned providers.
7.5 We have also established a Provider Diversity Reference
Group that includes a wide range of practitioner representatives.
This group plays an important advisory role in the development
of LSC policy.
7.6 We conduct and publish comprehensive impact assessments
on all of our proposals as soon as they are developed.
7.7 Written Committee question 4 dated 21 February: The
planned procurement and remuneration reforms may have a disproportionate
impact on BME legal aid providers and clients.
(a) Lord Carter considers that such disproportionate
effect would be justified by the need to control legal aid spending.
The Bar Council tends to disagree. What is the legal advice you
have been given on that issue?
We are currently consulting on our proposals for the introduction
of fixed fees, including the level of fee for each area based
on revised boundary areas. This consultation also considers, as
suggested by Lord Carter, whether we should introduce a minimum
threshold to access to legal aid work in the police station, which
is where it has been claimed that the impact on BME providers
could be considered disproportionate. Our draft RIA, which accompanies
the consultation, measures the impact of such a threshold both
nationally and for London, which represents the highest volume
of legal aid work and the largest number of BME providers.
Whether a particular policy is justified depends on the aim
of the policy being legitimate and on whether the means used to
achieve it are proportionate. Lord Carter's terms of reference
clearly set out a legitimate aim. Relevant factors in considering
proportionality are the size of the impact and the strength of
the public policy gains. Following our consultation on this issue
we will take a view on whether such a threshold is justifiable
against these criteria.
(b) The LSC concedes that it lacks the data to carry
out a robust assessment of the impact of a lot of the Carter reforms
on BME clients. How can the LSC than carry out an adequate race
impact assessment and comply with its race equality duty?
We conduct regular diversity research and publish an annual
diversity report. We also ask for ethnic origin on our "matter
report forms", using categories agreed with the Commission
for Racial Equality. Whilst we acknowledge that there has been
a shortfall in data on BME criminal clients we are requiring providers
to submit client data from December 2006. We will use that data
to improve our understanding of BME issues. As the LSC continues
to collect this data and takes forward the various schemes, we
are confident of being able to conduct adequate race impact assessments
and complying with our statutory obligations in this respect.
(c) Will the DCA/LSC undertake to conduct a comprehensive
race impact assessment of all the proposed legal aid procurement
reforms "as a package" prior to their implementation?
We have clearly outlined our direction of travel and are
analysing the impacts as the detail of the specific reforms is
developed. It would not be possible to assess the overall impact
accurately before the detail of each reform is known. For example,
the current consultation on police station schemes is accompanied
by a very detailed RIA, which would not have been possible when
we set out the direction of travel last year.
Where proposals could have a combined impact, wherever possible
we will provide an assessment their impact both separately and
together. For example, we will do this across the range of civil
fees to be introduced from October 2007. We doubt that an all-encompassing
study would be practicable or useful, or would add value beyond
individual studies.
We will monitor implementation very carefully and make rapid
adjustments where necessary, using the flexibility in our ability
to amend contracts.
7.8 Written Committee question 4 dated 8 February: The
TFF Replacement Scheme RIA appears to indicate that average costs
per case of BME clients are higher than costs per case of non-BME
clients. Can you confirm this? If not, what research has been
done to establish average case costs for BME and non-BME clients?
The RIA states that cases involving BME clients in the main
social welfare law categories in London are no more expensive
than those involving clients of white origin in London. A national
examination of cost distributions for the categories of housing,
debt and welfare benefits shows that there is no significant difference
according to whether a client is from a BME background.
However, our analysis of predictors of costsalso included
in the RIAindicates that it is not as simple as making
a distinction between BME clients and non-BME clients. Based on
the dataset used for the analysis, some ethnic groups' average
case costs are lower than White British clients while others are
higher.
For example, excluding the more expensive cases, cases advising
a Chinese client have significantly lower average costs£53
lessthan cases involving White British clients. An analysis
of client ethnicity case costs, excluding cases over £1,500,
shows that the more expensive groups are Mixed White Black African
(higher average costs of £38), Indian (higher average costs
of £30), Mixed White Asian (higher average costs of £25),
Mixed White Black Caribbean (higher average costs of £22)
and White Irish (higher average costs of £18). However, there
is little variation in costs compared to White British clients
for other groupsBlack British African clients' costs are
on average £5 less, Black British Caribbean clients' costs
are on average £5 more and Asian British other clients' average
costs are £5 lower.
7.9 The move towards a commissioned service will allow
the LSC to better focus services on communities such as some BME
clients. For example a jointly commissioned Community Legal Advice
Centre in Gateshead specifies clients from BME and faith communities
as one of the priority groups for whom services must be delivered.
7.10 Elsewhere, as we develop more jointly commissioned
services with local authorities, we will develop priorities that
best fit the needs of the local community and the variations between
different areas. For example, an increasing use of technology
such as web cam and video conferencing, outreach, peripatetic
services etc will ensure increasingly focused access for BME clients
that reflects the different needs of different groups.
7.11 Our commitment to improving access for clients can
be best met by working in partnership with BME-led providers.
We have committed to allow contract holders to sub contract work.
This will allow small agencies, including BME-led providers, to
continue to play an important role in serving BME clients.
7.12 Equally, small agencies may come together to form
larger agencies either through formal merger, consortia or other
partnerships. A flexible approach to how providers develop is
possible as long as clarity is maintained about the principles
of commissioning against quality, access and value.
7.13 It has been noted that many small agencies, including
BME-led providers, can be as efficient and therefore profitable
as larger providers. Under market competition those providers
will be given the opportunity to grow. The combination of their
efficiency (and thus lower bids) and their ability to meet the
needs of excluded clients will mean they will be well placed to
win contracts.
7.14 Not-for-profit agencies that focus on BME groups
that can match the efficiency of the best providers elsewhere,
will win contracts. This will enable them to retain a surplus
equal to the profits generated in a business environment or win
additional contracts through their ability to deliver at lower
costs. Either way, these agencies will have the opportunity to
expand and better deliver their own objectives.
7.15 It is therefore our view that through providers
competing to deliver a clearly specified service we can actually
improve access for BME clients.
8. EFFICIENCY
8.1 The LSC appreciates that its existing administrative
processes can place a burden on publicly funded organisations
in the administration of legal aid cases. As part of the reform
programme we are transforming our operational and business management
processes in order to deliver efficiency for both the provider
and the LSC.
8.2 The LSC is currently designing new processes to reduce
the administrative burden whilst protecting the Legal Aid budget.
As part of this work we are looking at how we manage client administration
and provider contracts. There is a strong emphasis on electronic
working, as this allows processing to be automated and will reduce
time spent on manual procedures.
8.3 Wherever possible decisions will be devolved to the
provider. This will reduce bureaucracy and empower providers to
make the required decisions about their provision of legal aid
services. We are confident that the combination of electronic
working and devolved decisions will result in a more streamlined
and more efficient service for both providers and clients. As
a result our resources will be focused on the most complex areas
of work and those which pose the greatest risk to the legal aid
budget.
8.4 We will work with a group of providers to define
how the new processes should work, and to understand what electronic
working means in terms of helping providers increase their efficiency
when running legal aid cases.
8.5 The LSC will ensure that the processes are robust,
protect the client and taxpayer, and allow providers to realise
administrative savings under their legal aid contract. This will
involve a full consultation and a pilot of the new processes.
We expect to publish the timetable for developing and consulting
on the new ways of working later in Spring 2007.
8.6 As a result of this greater efficiency, our aim is
to reduce our own administrative costs by 30% over the next four
years, reducing our headcount from 1,600 to 1,000.
9. ENGAGING WITH
PROVIDERS
9.1 Written Committee questions 9 and 10 dated 8 February:
How many consultations are the LSC running in association with
these proposals contained in the DCA/LSC paper Legal Aid Reform:
the Way Ahead? How many consultations remain to be carried out?
The following list includes all consultations that have taken
place since the publication of Legal Aid Reform: the Way Ahead,
those currently taking place and those planned.
Crime
Market Stability Measures for duty solicitor arrangements
from April 2007 (completed)
1. Amendments to General Criminal Contract in April 2007
(completed).
2. Fixed fees, boundary areas and new working arrangements
for police station work from October 2007 (current).
3. New Very High Cost Criminal Case contract, panel and
Best Value Protocol (current).
4. Expansion of Criminal Defence Service Direct (to come).
5. New Very High Cost Criminal Case regulations (to come).
6. New Very High Cost Criminal Case contract, panel and
Best Value Protocol (current).
7. Expansion of Criminal Defence Service Direct (to come).
8. New Litigators Fee Scheme for Crown Court work (to
come).
9. Single Graduated Fee (combining advocates and litigators)
for Crown Court work (to come).
10. Best Value Tendering (to come).
Civil
11. LSC Unified Contract specifications for civil categories.
12. Revised fee scheme for child care work (current).
13. Revised fee scheme for family helpprivate
work (current).
14. Funding code amendments for residential assessments
and merits testing for child care.
15. Fees for advocacy for solicitors and counsel in family
cases, including full representation in familyprivate (to
come).
16. Best Value Tendering (to come).
17. Standard fees for experts (to come).
General
18. New electronic ways of working and devolving decision
making to providers.
9.2 Written Committee question 11 dated 8 February: Since
the publication of the report, which elements of the implementation
plans have the DCA/LSC had to revise/withdraw?
We have listened carefully to the views expressed during
the consultations that have taken place so far and have adjusted
the timing and content of the reforms to reflect these. Appendix
1 provides a list of the reforms and the changes that have been
made since Lord Carter's original recommendations and those consulted
on by the LSC and DCA in Legal aid: a sustainable future.
9.3 Written Committee question 1 dated 8 February: The
Committee repeatedly received evidence suggesting that legal aid
firms are currently giving up legal aid work in anticipation of
the Carter reforms.
(a) Are the LSC collating evidence of the current
intentions of firms? If no, why not?
(b) If yes, what levels of withdrawal from legal
aid are being signalled by firms? How firm are those signals?
How many firms have given notice of contract termination?
The LSC is carefully monitoring the intentions of firms through
its regional offices.
Only a very small number of providers have withdrawn from
legal aid, or indicated that they will, as a result of the reforms.
Some of these have been as a result of mergers, so are not true
withdrawals. Overall, the rate of withdrawal has not changed significantly
in recent months. There is also clear evidence of demand from
other providers to take on more legal aid work.
Experience shows that the introduction of significant new
systems can influence providers who have already been considering
whether or not they wish to remain in legal aid work to leave
the market. However, experience also shows that many providers
who say they will withdraw, in practice choose to remain in the
legal aid system.
Some providers will undoubtedly be awaiting the outcome of
the various consultations before making their decisions. We are
currently consulting on revised proposals for family and we believe
we have addressed many of the concerns raised during the original
consultation last year. Similarly the immigration fixed fee scheme
published this week has been adjusted to reflect the views expressed.
We expect that the changes to the proposals will significantly
reduce the likelihood of providers feeling that the fixed fee
schemes may be unworkable for them.
In crime, we have seen a reasonably consistent pattern of
the number of providers delivering legal aid over the past three
years.
The LSC takes its responsibilities seriously and will continue
to monitor providers' intentions. However, based on current evidence,
we are confident that providers will remain in the legal aid system
in sufficient numbers to provide the level and quality of service
we need.
APPENDIX 1
THE KEY CHANGES OUTLINED IN LEGAL AID REFORM: THE WAY
AHEAD
These include:
Introducing best value competitive tendering for
criminal legal aid services (consultation will take place in summer
2007) from October 2008 (initially proposed for 2009).
Introducing a "unified contract" for
civil legal services in April 2007, starting with standard terms
to bring law firms and NfP agencies under the same contract conditions.
Revised standard fees for magistrates' court work,
which include an element of travel and waiting, will be introduced
in main urban areas from April 2007 (initially proposed for all
areas from this date).
Introducing a revised graduated fees scheme for
Crown Court advocates from April 2007. Crown Court litigators
graduated fees to be introduced in October 2007 (initially proposed
for April 2007).
Introducing a single graduated fees scheme in
the Crown Court for both litigators and advocates, that will be
subject to best value competitive tendering, by October 2008 (initially
proposed for 2009).
Fixed fees for police station work to be introduced
in October 2007 (initially proposed for April 2007) and these
to be set according to new boundary areas to allow for sensitivity
to local conditions (initial proposal was to set fees by Criminal
Justice System area).
Implementing revised Care Proceedings Graduated
Fees (consultation will take place in early 2007) in October 2007
(initially proposed for April 2007).
Implementing revised graduated fees for Family
LawPrivate work (consultation will take place in early
2007) in October 2007 (graduated fees initially proposed for April
2007).
The replacement for Tailored Fixed Fees for civil
legal services will be implemented from October 2007 for both
solicitors and for the not-for-profit sector (initially proposed
for April 2007).
Introducing graduated fee schemes for immigration
and asylum and mental health work in October 2007 (initially proposed
for April 2007). Revised fees will be published in early 2007.
APPENDIX 2
APPENDIX 2
CIVIL LEGAL HELP MATTER STARTS (NON-IMMIGRATION) 2005-04 TO 2006-07 - FACE-TO-FACE
2004-05 |
2005-06 |
2006-07 (April-December Only) |
2006-07 Projected |
West Midlands |
50,356 |
West Midlands |
57,192 |
West Midlands |
41,185 |
West Midlands |
56,835 |
South East |
51,630 |
South East |
56,448 |
South East |
43,152 |
South East |
59,550 |
South West |
49,751 |
South West |
54,427 |
South West |
41,043 |
South West |
56,639 |
Eastern |
40,597 |
Eastern |
43,840 |
Eastern |
34,243 |
Eastern |
47,255 |
Wales |
43,787 |
Wales |
48,722 |
Wales |
35,939 |
Wales |
49,596 |
Yorkshire & Humberside |
55,244 |
Yorkshire & Humberside |
59,546 |
Yorkshire & Humberside |
44,365 |
Yorkshire & Humberside |
61,224 |
Merseyside |
32,580 |
Merseyside |
34,770 |
Merseyside |
27,050 |
Merseyside |
37,329 |
London |
90,988 |
London |
102,324 |
London |
82,206 |
London |
113,444 |
North West |
64,296 |
North West |
67,517 |
North West |
53,285 |
North West |
73,533 |
North East |
43,958 |
North East |
47,342 |
North East |
36,259 |
North East |
50,037 |
East Midlands |
44,904 |
East Midlands |
45,893 |
East Midlands |
34,043 |
East Midlands |
46,979 |
Total |
568,091 |
Total |
618,021 |
Total |
472,770 |
Total |
652,423 |
CLS Direct Total |
20,000 |
CLS Direct Total |
73,625 |
|
|
CLS Direct Total* |
100,000 |
|
|
Other cases*** |
4,833 |
Court Duty Houseing |
N/A** |
Court Duty Houseing |
12,031 |
|
|
Court Duty Housing |
27,500 |
Possession Scheme |
|
Possession Scheme |
|
|
|
Possession Scheme* |
Total NMS 2004-05 |
588,091 |
Total NMS 2005-06 |
708,510 |
|
|
Total NMS 2005-06 |
779,923 |
* Projected
** During 2004-05 there were only a small number of schemes in operation, matter start numbers were negigable and have therefore not been included here.
*** eg Partnership Initiative Budget, FAINS
Note: This data has been provided to representative bodies.
CIVIL LEGAL HELP MATTER STARS (NON-IMMIGRATION) 2004-05
Solicitors Starts
|
West Midlands |
South East |
South West |
Eastern |
Wales |
Yorkshire & Humberside |
Merseyside |
London |
North West |
North East |
East Midlands |
Totals |
|
393 |
188 |
187 |
47 |
166 |
477 |
506 |
1,068 |
480 |
658 |
411 |
4,581 |
COM |
302 |
179 |
147 |
32 |
161 |
196 |
347 |
1,471 |
117 |
52 |
96 |
3,100 |
CON |
231 |
492 |
537 |
272 |
397 |
274 |
56 |
263 |
48 |
384 |
384 |
3,338 |
DEB |
1,092 |
871 |
975 |
652 |
1,954 |
983 |
1,675 |
1,142 |
1,477 |
2,041 |
1,576 |
14,438 |
EDU |
162 |
107 |
323 |
41 |
179 |
190 |
122 |
733 |
105 |
98 |
182 |
2,242 |
EMP |
286 |
608 |
579 |
484 |
464 |
565 |
42 |
1,044 |
307 |
451 |
469 |
5,299 |
HOU |
2,674 |
5,301 |
2,860 |
1,507 |
2,540 |
3,767 |
2,792 |
22,009 |
3,710 |
2,713 |
1,905 |
51,778 |
MAT |
27,480 |
28,974 |
27,109 |
24,951 |
20,737 |
33,201 |
8,361 |
27,280 |
31,683 |
21,410 |
24,550 |
275,736 |
MHE |
1,430 |
2,512 |
1,898 |
1,520 |
1,098 |
2,294 |
1,967 |
12,243 |
2,453 |
1,341 |
2,017 |
20,773 |
MSC |
786 |
1,041 |
1,146 |
874 |
1,519 |
636 |
169 |
611 |
158 |
1,702 |
1,001 |
9,643 |
PUB |
260 |
40 |
177 |
17 |
21 |
264 |
126 |
410 |
12 |
29 |
276 |
1,632 |
WB |
1,756 |
820 |
938 |
471 |
1,861 |
1,476 |
6,630 |
5,029 |
2,281 |
1,630 |
1,026 |
23,918 |
PI |
208 |
192 |
210 |
138 |
438 |
550 |
129 |
328 |
132 |
571 |
256 |
3,152 |
MED |
331 |
269 |
503 |
224 |
333 |
518 |
246 |
353 |
282 |
356 |
277 |
3,692 |
Total |
37,391 |
41,594 |
37,589 |
31,230 |
31,868 |
45,391 |
23,168 |
73,984 |
43,245 |
33,436 |
34,426 |
433,322 |
NfP Starts
|
West Midlands |
South East |
South West |
Eastern |
Wales |
Yorkshire & Humberside |
Merseyside |
London |
North West |
North East |
East Midlands |
Totals |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
COM |
133 |
0 |
46 |
5 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
42 |
60 |
65 |
7 |
359 |
CON |
32 |
8 |
18 |
41 |
2 |
4 |
62 |
162 |
120 |
148 |
4 |
601 |
DEB |
5,990 |
2,785 |
4,388 |
3,429 |
3,767 |
3,185 |
2,804 |
3,425 |
7,523 |
4,160 |
3,433 |
44,889 |
EDU |
0 |
0 |
31 |
219 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
101 |
65 |
1 |
0 |
421 |
EMP |
422 |
216 |
129 |
413 |
26 |
315 |
451 |
858 |
1,000 |
371 |
158 |
4,359 |
HOU |
1,440 |
3,515 |
3,462 |
2,323 |
3,788 |
3,225 |
1,272 |
4,666 |
4,331 |
1,600 |
2,817 |
32,439 |
MAT |
27 |
49 |
108 |
68 |
10 |
23 |
399 |
395 |
58 |
29 |
60 |
1,226 |
MHE |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
15 |
0 |
115 |
99 |
0 |
0 |
230 |
MSC |
0 |
74 |
18 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
143 |
10 |
3 |
0 |
252 |
PUB |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
11 |
0 |
0 |
17 |
WB |
4,921 |
3,388 |
3,962 |
2,867 |
4,324 |
3,084 |
4,420 |
7,090 |
7,773 |
4,145 |
3,999 |
49,973 |
PI |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
MED |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Total |
12,965 |
10,036 |
12,162 |
9,367 |
11,919 |
9,853 |
9,412 |
17,004 |
21,051 |
10,522 |
10,478 |
134,769 |
Combined Total |
50,356 |
51,630 |
49,751 |
40,597 |
43,787 |
55,244 |
32,580 |
90,988 |
64,296 |
43,958 |
44,904 |
568,091 |
CIVIL LEGAL HELP MATTER STARS (NON-IMMIGRATION) 2005-06
Solicitors Starts
|
West Midlands |
South East |
South West |
Eastern |
Wales |
Yorkshire & Humberside |
Merseyside |
London |
North West |
North East |
East Midlands |
Totals |
|
355 |
212 |
212 |
66 |
203 |
449 |
384 |
1,130 |
406 |
652 |
485 |
4,,554 |
COM |
303 |
234 |
207 |
21 |
157 |
343 |
466 |
1,475 |
138 |
81 |
275 |
3,700 |
CON |
234 |
535 |
567 |
251 |
433 |
229 |
132 |
281 |
30 |
391 |
310 |
3,393 |
DEB |
1,344 |
1,007 |
1,134 |
771 |
2,549 |
1,257 |
1,580 |
1,655 |
1,441 |
2,254 |
1,713 |
16,705 |
EDU |
156 |
108 |
296 |
43 |
301 |
204 |
81 |
746 |
32 |
80 |
145 |
2,192 |
EMP |
362 |
683 |
512 |
515 |
590 |
701 |
85 |
1,123 |
265 |
516 |
479 |
5,831 |
HOU |
3,662 |
5,701 |
3,473 |
1,779 |
3,290 |
4,840 |
3,113 |
24,256 |
4,015 |
3,210 |
1,772 |
59,111 |
MAT |
28,637 |
29,710 |
26,662 |
25,134 |
21,424 |
35,182 |
8,733 |
27,260 |
32,183 |
22,022 |
49,958 |
281,905 |
MHE |
1,548 |
2,568 |
1,942 |
1,749 |
1,200 |
2,460 |
2,115 |
14,254 |
2,722 |
1,452 |
2,127 |
34,137 |
MSC |
741 |
968 |
1,116 |
721 |
1,530 |
531 |
199 |
442 |
89 |
1,664 |
944 |
8,945 |
PUB |
187 |
80 |
188 |
36 |
28 |
222 |
177 |
611 |
4 |
63 |
169 |
1,765 |
WB |
1,940 |
600 |
934 |
499 |
1,948 |
1,327 |
6,463 |
5,832 |
2,293 |
1,460 |
638 |
23,934 |
PI |
153 |
225 |
274 |
95 |
324 |
553 |
173 |
261 |
124 |
472 |
190 |
2,844 |
MED |
334 |
285 |
470 |
181 |
350 |
497 |
249 |
421 |
263 |
274 |
228 |
3,552 |
Total |
39,956 |
42,916 |
37,987 |
31,861 |
34,327 |
48,795 |
23,950 |
79,747 |
44,005 |
34,591 |
34,433 |
452,568 |
NfP Starts
|
West Midlands |
South East |
South West |
Eastern |
Wales |
Yorkshire & Humberside |
Merseyside |
London |
North West |
North East |
East Midlands |
Totals |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
COM |
138 |
26 |
46 |
1 |
16 |
23 |
6 |
100 |
82 |
72 |
18 |
528 |
CON |
2 |
39 |
45 |
57 |
91 |
3 |
6 |
196 |
3 |
12 |
1 |
455 |
DEB |
8,112 |
3,686 |
6,689 |
4,113 |
4,619 |
3,653 |
3,192 |
4,625 |
8,403 |
5,267 |
3,924 |
56,283 |
EDU |
7 |
0 |
24 |
165 |
6 |
1 |
0 |
176 |
68 |
9 |
0 |
456 |
EMP |
482 |
209 |
772 |
559 |
56 |
324 |
489 |
1,231 |
992 |
404 |
149 |
5,667 |
HOU |
2,389 |
5,172 |
3,855 |
2,735 |
4,125 |
2,936 |
1,588 |
6,159 |
5,085 |
2,266 |
2,556 |
38,866 |
MAT |
31 |
59 |
23 |
398 |
0 |
0 |
710 |
292 |
28 |
3 |
42 |
1,586 |
MHE |
0 |
0 |
13 |
1 |
0 |
20 |
0 |
35 |
89 |
9 |
0 |
167 |
MSC |
1 |
15 |
3 |
4 |
39 |
3 |
1 |
377 |
6 |
3 |
0 |
452 |
PUB |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
17 |
0 |
0 |
11 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
35 |
WB |
6,073 |
4,325 |
4,968 |
3,945 |
5,423 |
3,788 |
4,828 |
9,367 |
8,746 |
4,706 |
4,770 |
60,939 |
PI |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
MED |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
Total |
17,236 |
13,532 |
16,440 |
11,979 |
14,395 |
10,751 |
10,820 |
22,577 |
23,512 |
12,751 |
11,460 |
165,453 |
Combined Total |
57,192 |
56,448 |
54,427 |
43,840 |
48,722 |
59,546 |
34,770 |
102,324 |
67,517 |
47,342 |
45,893 |
618,021 |
CIVIL LEGAL HELP MATTER STARS (NON-IMMIGRATION) 2006-07 (APRIL-DECEMBER ONLY)
Solicitors Starts
|
West Midlands |
South East |
South West |
Eastern |
Wales |
Yorkshire & Humberside |
Merseyside |
London |
North West |
North East |
East Midlands |
Totals |
AAP |
249 |
121 |
150 |
50 |
177 |
307 |
333 |
860 |
302 |
523 |
304 |
3,376 |
COM |
226 |
110 |
63 |
70 |
118 |
277 |
299 |
1,217 |
100 |
83 |
163 |
2,726 |
CON |
170 |
375 |
410 |
176 |
323 |
231 |
56 |
261 |
26 |
294 |
218 |
2,540 |
DEB |
616 |
740 |
774 |
589 |
1,955 |
800 |
950 |
1,437 |
1,319 |
1,593 |
1,080 |
11,853 |
EDU |
105 |
51 |
181 |
28 |
188 |
140 |
56 |
496 |
2 |
43 |
78 |
1,368 |
EMP |
247 |
524 |
500 |
376 |
426 |
477 |
61 |
683 |
252 |
388 |
308 |
4,242 |
HOU |
2,679 |
3,807 |
2,623 |
1,484 |
2,237 |
3,410 |
2,497 |
17,489 |
2,562 |
2,755 |
1,220 |
42,763 |
MAT |
20,930 |
20,945 |
19,854 |
18,490 |
15,116 |
25,963 |
6,335 |
19,850 |
23,458 |
16,119 |
18,187 |
205,247 |
MHE |
1,226 |
1,824 |
1,342 |
1,232 |
931 |
2,059 |
1,565 |
10,382 |
1,935 |
1,046 |
1,639 |
25,181 |
MSC |
457 |
693 |
782 |
528 |
1,091 |
506 |
182 |
251 |
50 |
1,074 |
636 |
6,250 |
PUB |
118 |
65 |
104 |
36 |
14 |
179 |
134 |
441 |
3 |
60 |
96 |
1,250 |
WB |
1,100 |
447 |
648 |
420 |
1,366 |
988 |
4,865 |
4,634 |
1,460 |
1,105 |
356 |
17,389 |
PI |
96 |
158 |
120 |
81 |
206 |
476 |
134 |
201 |
40 |
416 |
116 |
2,044 |
MED |
343 |
198 |
231 |
93 |
276 |
440 |
139 |
286 |
187 |
216 |
185 |
2,594 |
Total |
28,562 |
30,058 |
27,782 |
23,653 |
24,424 |
36,253 |
17,606 |
58,488 |
31,696 |
25,715 |
24,586 |
328,823 |
NfP Starts
|
West Midlands |
South East |
South West |
Eastern |
Wales |
Yorkshire & Humberside |
Merseyside |
London |
North West |
North East |
East Midlands |
Totals |
AAP |
0 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
16 |
COM |
127 |
32 |
46 |
2 |
4 |
15 |
2 |
153 |
98 |
42 |
8 |
529 |
CON |
77 |
7 |
4 |
26 |
32 |
10 |
0 |
177 |
6 |
10 |
39 |
388 |
DEB |
5,486 |
3,657 |
5,476 |
3,872 |
3,681 |
2,938 |
2,751 |
4,641 |
7,699 |
4,457 |
2,974 |
47,632 |
EDU |
1 |
1 |
10 |
122 |
8 |
1 |
0 |
201 |
54 |
0 |
0 |
398 |
EMP |
381 |
182 |
282 |
531 |
147 |
237 |
403 |
1,483 |
776 |
292 |
137 |
4,851 |
HOU |
1,895 |
4,983 |
3,280 |
2,057 |
2,986 |
1,770 |
1,313 |
5,955 |
4,614 |
1,694 |
2,108 |
32,655 |
MAT |
0 |
213 |
0 |
407 |
1 |
69 |
512 |
489 |
26 |
1 |
0 |
1,718 |
MHE |
8 |
0 |
12 |
0 |
0 |
22 |
0 |
1 |
97 |
3 |
0 |
143 |
MSC |
0 |
13 |
4 |
6 |
110 |
1 |
0 |
425 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
568 |
PUB |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
18 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
22 |
WB |
4,646 |
4,005 |
4,143 |
3,567 |
4,544 |
3,049 |
4,463 |
10,102 |
8,200 |
4,045 |
4,191 |
54,955 |
PI |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
68 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
72 |
MED |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Total |
12,623 |
13,094 |
13,261 |
10,590 |
11,515 |
8,112 |
9,444 |
23,718 |
21,589 |
10,544 |
9,457 |
143,947 |
Combined Total |
41,185 |
43,152 |
41,043 |
34,243 |
35,939 |
44,365 |
27,050 |
82,206 |
53,285 |
36,259 |
34,043 |
472,770 |
APPENDIX 3
CHILD CARE COSTS
FACTORS AFFECTING
CHILD CARE
COSTS
Notes on Data
All of the information in the following report is based on
details of 21,885 Public Law children cases from the financial
year 2004-05. This data has been provided to representative bodies.
High cost casesthose with total profit costs of more
than £20,000, have not been included in the analysis. These
would be excluded from fixed fees in any event.
The information within the report has been displayed with
reference to the medians, lower quartiles and upper quartiles
of the data sets.
The information displayed for lower quartiles pertains to
all cases below the relevant lower quartile limit, that for upper
quartiles pertains to those above relevant upper quartile limits,
and that for medians to everything in between.
IMPACT OF
LOCATION: BID
ZONE
The chart below display the average profit costs for public
law children certificates, by quartile, against bid zone for London.
Average Profit Costs by BidZone - London
While it can be seen than Kensington & Chelsea suppliers
have slightly higher than average profit costs, and those for
Sutton and Richmond Upon Thames are slightly lower than average,
there is very little variation across bid zones.
IMPACT OF
CLIENT TYPE:
CLIENT ETHNICITY
The charts below display the average profit costs for public
law children cases, by quartile, against client ethnicity for
London and Non-London cases.
It can again be seen that, while there are variations, none
of these are large enough to indicate that client ethnicity has
a substantial impact on profit costs.
IMPACT OF
CLIENT TYPE:
GENDER
The charts below display the average profit costs for public
law children cases, by quartile, against gender of parent for
London and Non-London cases. As can be seen, there is no significant
variation in profit cost by gender.
USE
OF COUNSEL
The charts below display the average profit costs for public
law children cases, by use of counsel for London and Non-London
cases. While these charts show that there is a slight increase
in profit costs in those cases where counsel is instructed, across
all quartiles, the variation is not significant.
APPENDIX 4
THE IMPACT OF TAILORED FEES ON CASE MIX
CASE MATTER
TYPES
The following charts display the percentage mix of Pre and
Post TFF matter types in Housing, Debt and Welfare Benefits.
These charts clearly demonstrate that the introduction of
fixed fees has had no discernable impact on the types of cases
taken on by suppliers. For instance, in housing the largest variation
occurs in Local authority landlord disrepair cases, where there
were 2.8% more cases pre-TFF, but this amount is negligible.
CASE END
POINTS
The following charts display the percentage mix of Pre and
Post TFF first and third stage endpoint codes in all categories
covered under the proposed replacement for TFF schemes.

KEY
Client's Ethnic code |
Ethnic Origin |
00 |
Other |
01 |
White British |
02 |
White Irish |
03 |
Black / Black British African |
04 |
Black / Black British Caribbean |
05 |
Black / Black British Other |
06 |
Asian / Asian British Indian |
07 |
Asian / Asian British Pakistani |
08 |
Asian / Asian British Bangladeshi |
09 |
Chinese |
10 |
Mixed White / Black Caribbean |
11 |
Mixed White / Black African |
12 |
Mixed White / Asian |
13 |
Mixed Other |
14 |
White Other |
15 |
Asian / Asian British Other |
99 |
Unknown |
Client Gender |
Pre-TFF Post TFF |
Male |
49.19% 48.25% |
Female |
50.81% 51.75% |
Again, variations are minimal, indicating that the introduction
of fixed fees has had no impact on the end stages of suppliers'
cases.
CLIENT ETHNICITY
The following diagrams display the percentage mix of clients'
ethnicities nd genders pre and post TFF.
These diagrams show that the introduction of fixed fees has
had no impact upon the types of clients that suppliers serve.
APPENDIX 5
CIVIL FEE SCHEMESNATIONAL AND REGIONAL FEES
This note has been published on 1 February in conjunction
with details of the new fee schemes for Immigration and Family
work.
GENERAL
1. Our starting point for the civil standard fee schemes
is to impose national fees wherever feasible.
It is our view that appropriate regional prices
will be best set by competition. Existing differentials do not
necessarily reflect a best value price. For example we would expect
prices in some high cost areas where there are lots of suppliers
to reduce after competitionthis could include suppliers
moving from other lower cost areas.
We have the anomaly that prices tend to be higher
at the moment in Londonthe very area where we will have
most competition and expect prices to come down. On the other
hand we may need to focus funding in other areas of the country
where we find it more difficult to get suppliers to do the work.
Current price differentials between London/non
London or indeed between other regions cannot, under an hourly
rates system, be said to reflect different overheads for suppliers
in different parts of the country. This is because the differentials
in cost per case are largely a feature of the length of time the
provider claims on the case.
When you look at the distribution within regions
-this tends to be almost as wide as distribution between regions.
In other words, there are very cheap and very expensive suppliers
in every region but the proportions vary.
2. Given a national fee as a starting point, we have
then reviewed each scheme to decide what the impact of this might
be. Whilst we would not want to maintain current price differentials
in the longer term, it is important that we maintain enough supply
to provide sustainable access during the transition to competition.
3. We have looked at various factors:
Longer term policy drivers -eg what is the right
balance of work/funding between London and other regions.
The possible impact of national rates on providers
and through them on access to services by clients. This includes
factors such as the number of cases dealt with providers those
whose current average costs are above or below the fees.
In some cases, this has led to us moving away from the desired
model of a national fee in the interests of sustainability in
the short term.
10. TFF REPLACEMENT
5. Here we have stayed with a national fee -this leads
a majority of suppliers gaining nationallybut it leads
to lower standard fees for a majority of London suppliers. However:
In the categories of law affected we have more
providers in London than we do in other areas where it is more
difficult to obtain supply. Our modelling shows that we currently
spend significantly more in London than the allocation of the
social welfare budget using data from means tested benefits would
justify.
The actual cash amounts involved for firms whose
current average costs are above the fees are relatively small.
Total national expenditure on solicitors for legal help cases
covered by the fees is around £28 millioncompared
to over £570 million for family work. Even in the TFF replacement
categories many firms rely on the income from legal representation
rather than initial legal advice.
For Not for Profit providers -we intend to put
in transitional arrangements that will give them the opportunity
to maintain their income.
It is much easier for "swings and roundabouts"
to apply at the initial advice level -as there are a lot more
clients. Firms can easily become "winners" under the
new scheme by taking on more Legal Help casesnot difficult
given high levels of demand and the speed with which Legal Help
cases conclude.
11. IMMIGRATION
6. We have stayed with a national rate -clients move
around the country in this category. Average costs are not significantly
higher in London than in other regions and we have large numbers
of suppliers in London. Detained clients are not covered by the
new standard fees but will continue to be dealt with under separate
duty schemes. These and other services excluded from the standard
fee scheme will be based around process and location of client.
12. MENTAL HEALTH
7. Mental health providers operate over wide areas not
coinciding with our regional boundaries. Indeed many work on a
national basis. For example 42% of cases dealt with by London
suppliers are for clients outside of London. Current regional
costs therefore reflect to some extent the high costs of firms
travelling to see clients in different regions rather than the
real cost of supply of advice. Paying a high element for travel
represents an inefficient use of public funds and we see the future
of mental health law services for detained clients as based around
hospitals rather than the current geography of supply.
8. We expect to announce the final shape of the mental
health fee scheme in the coming weeks.
13. FAMILY
9. In family, as in other schemes, we have retained a
national fee for initial advice in (level 1 in private, levels
1 and 2 in public).
10. However the impact of setting national fees at the
legal representation level (ie beyond initial advice) could in
our view, have an unacceptable effect on access in the short term
because of the current profile of supply. Family firms would tend
to be heavily reliant on their income from legal representation.
Increasing a caseload to make up for any losses will also require
more resource for firms than at the Legal Help leveland
will be more difficult to do because of lower demand and eligibility.
Nor do we have the same issues with family suppliers travelling
to other regions as we do with mental health -or therefore quite
the same need to encourage local supply outside of London.
11. We are therefore proposing that the fees at Level
3 (legal representation) should be based on four geographic regions
merging the boundaries of existing LSC offices. This reduces the
amount of variation of costs compared to a national fee. In addition
to this, there is less deviation within the super regional distributions
than there is in many equivalent regional distributions. The supra
regions are:
Southern: incorporating London, Brighton, Reading
and Bristol.
Midlands: incorporating Birmingham, Nottingham
and Cambridge.
Northern: incorporating Newcastle, Leeds, Liverpool
and Manchester.
12. In public law, this produced an acceptable distribution
of costs across all regions, including London.
13. The difference of average costs between London and
non-London, and the variation of costs within London is however
much greater in private than in public family law. Therefore in
order to ensure that we maintain a reasonable balance of supply,
after restructuring the fees based on the four supra regions,
we have also proposed an added uplift of 16% to the fees for London
suppliers at levels 2 and 3 in private family cases. We see this
as a transitional measure to maintain supply: we do not consider
the current high price of London cases as necessarily justifiable
and we would expect London prices to come down either through
competition or because of our drive to ensure that cases settle
at an early stage.
Legal Services Commission
February 2007
APPENDIX 6
PEER REVIEW QUALITY AND COST DATA
|