Supplementary evidence from Jonathan Djanogly
MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice,
following the evidence session on Wednesday 16 February 2011 (AJ
66)
I am writing in response to a letter dated 21 February
sent to the committee from Mr Will Horwitz at Community Links
and copied to me (AJ 59).
In the letter Mr Horwitz refers to the oral evidence
that I gave to the Justice Committee on the l6 February in relation
to Access to Justice: the Government's proposed reforms for legal
aid. In particular in my response to Q355 where I state that an
East London agency is "... using legal aid to provide a fundamental
benefits advisory service." I am of course happy to accept
the clarification from Community Links about their funding streams
as provided in the letter. However, there are two more fundamental
points to be made here that I was drawing to the attention of
the Justice Committee. It is generally considered to be the case
that legal aid is often used for advice which is usually of a
general nature. This is particularly in social welfare matters.
For example, in the case of debt, LSC figures from 09/10 show
that the proportion of legal help (initial advice and assistance)
funding spent on negotiating payment arrangements, and advising
clients on managing their affairs better, accounts for approximately
62% of the spend. Conversely, liability for the debt itself was
reported as successfully contested in less than 2% of cases. Whilst
we recognise that advice on money management is often of clear
benefit to the client, it is not necessarily an issue which requires
specialist legal advice funded by legal aid.
Secondly, we are keen to ensure that the first port
of call for the initial decision making should be for the government
agencies administering the service. We consider that it is important
to resolve issues such as simple entitlement with the government
agency concerned rather than resorting to legal advice.
I am copying this letter to Will Horwitz at Community
Links.
February 2011
|
