So, where are we at with the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill? Good question, and one that I will answer as best as I can, given that it is tied up with the minutiae of parliamentary process.
The bill was before the Lords in mid-January with opposition from peers from all parties, many of whom were proposing amendments, particularly to the sections in relation to eligibility and scope of Public Funding (Legal Aid). One such amendment, surprisingly proposed by Lord Tebbit, was to reinstate public funding for clinical negligence cases. However, after many hours of debate, the amendments were withdrawn one by one and the bill passed through the house.
What’s going on here? What seems to be the case is that the peers who are opposing the bill saw no merit in defeating the bill in the Lords, as they feel that a more effective tactic is to use the eight days of committee meeting to stage shows of strength to obtain concessions from Coalition ministers. Once ministers have been given a chance to compromise with regard to the content of the bill in committee and there is a vote at that stage, it cannot be revisited in the same form at a later date. The bill might just then reflect the proposed amendments that were previously withdrawn.
This might just be the better news for a change. Let’s see.
An article in the New Statesman by Law Society President, Linda Lee.
In the article, Linda Lee argues that the new bill will:
- Lead to more crime, according to the government’s own Impact Assessment
- Cost taxpayers more than it saves in knock-on effects for society
- Block access to justice for all
Join the Sound off for Justice campaign and sign their letter to David Cameron for him to intervene in the proposed cuts to Legal Aid
In these days of budgetary pecuniary and threats of more cuts, the LSC appears to being resorting to reductions to expert’s fees, even if they were paid years ago and even if they they have been approved by the court by employing seemingly unpublished (except in a link buried on their website) guidelines.
Chair of Resolution’s Legal Aid Committee, Dave Emmerson, has written the following letter to Legal Aid Lawyers on the Resolution website:
Dear Legal Aid Lawyers,
A number of you have reported that claims for experts’ fees are routinely being disallowed or reduced on assessment by the Legal Services Commission. This has happened even where the Court has approved the expense as reasonable.
The LSC’s change of policy is causing real problems, particularly if an expert was paid a couple of years ago and the solicitor may not be able to recover any shortfall from the expert.
It appears that the LSC is applying the rates from an internal guideline document, although these have not been published by the LSC. You can download the guidance here.
The Association of Lawyers for Children has drafted a letter of instruction for experts to ensure that solicitors do not bear the liability for any shortfall. The LSC has seen the letter and has stated: ‘The LSC is content with the letter in so far as it reflects the policies, procedures and contract terms of the LSC.’ The ALC is happy for Resolution members to use the precedent letter, for which we are very grateful. You can download it here.
The current position is very unsatisfactory as members are not receiving payment in full and are having to appeal. I have raised the issue with the LSC’s Head of Contracting and correspondence is ongoing. I will keep you informed of developments.
Dave Emmerson,
Chair, Legal Aid Committee
In an article published in Resolution’s “e-News”, Murray Heining, Chair of the Association of Costs Lawyers Legal Aid Committee, has reported that the LSC appear to be using out of date standard letters in relation to the time limits and procedure for Costs Appeals.
The correct procedure is to appeal to an Independent Costs Assessor within 28 days, which can be extended for good reason. It can be found at paragraphs 8.48 – 8.66 in the Unified Contract Specification.
The Ministry of Justice have started a four week consultation with the provider representative bodies in respect of a Funding Order intended to implement Phase 2 of the Family Fee schemes. The consultation will close on 18 March with an estimated date at present for the new schemes to be implemented on 2 May 2011.
Consultation letter HERE
The Law Society is running a series of free roadshows to update practitioners on the government’s Green Paper proposals for civil legal aid:
- Cardiff – 17 January
- London – 26 January
- Brighton – 3 February
- Manchester – 19 January
- Newcastle – 27 January
- Wakefield – 8 February
- Nottingham – 24 January
- Plymouth – 1 February
- Cambridge – 9 February
- Birmingham – 25 January
- Bristol – 2 February
Places are likely to be limited so book early at:
http://services.lawsociety.org.uk/events/
Get involved with the Law Society’s campaign at: www.lawsociety.org.uk/defendinglegalaid
A campaigner briefing pack is available to advise you on how to brief your MP and get coverage in your local press
Anyone who practises within the realm of Legal Aid and anyone with a keen interest in it (if you’ve found this blog - that’s you) should carefully consider the Government’s published proposals here:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/legal-aid-reform-151110.htm
And then download, complete and submit the Consultation Questionaire:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/docs/legal-aid-reform-consultation-questionnaire.doc
The government’s well-publicised plan for cuts to the Legal Aid budget which are in consultation until February could be scuppered by a pledge from the EU to set mandatory levels of civil and criminal legal aid for member states from 2013.
In a speech to the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, Commissioner for Justice Viviane Reding said that access to justice was a “fundamental right” and in line with article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and as such, governments must make legal aid funding available to litigants and defendants in civil and criminal case who otherwise could not afford representation.
The Law Society’s head of Legal Aid Policy Richard Miller said of the move:
‘The UK government’s proposed cuts to legal aid will put us out of step with the rest of Europe, which is embarking on a programme of broadening access to publicly funded representation, not shrinking it. There is a real danger that the proposed cuts will make us dip below the minimum standards imposed by the EU. We will have to make a humiliating U-turn and drag ourselves back up to an acceptable level.
