Wednesday 24 February 2010

Tower Hamlets Advice Organisations Social Policy Forum meeting - Agenda

Tower Hamlets Advice Organisations Social Policy Forum meeting

Thursday 11th March 2010 3pm

Agenda

Introductions and apologies.

Identifying and recording Social Policy issues – CAB presentation.

Review of current Social Policy work, including Money Advice, Housing and Welfare Benefits forums.

Discussion of areas where we could work together more effectively at both local and national level.

A.O.B

Date of next meeting.

Tower Hamlets Advice Agencies Social Policy Forum

Dear All,
I would like to confirm that the Tower Hamlets Advice agencies Social Policy forum will take place on Thursday 11th March at 3pm.
The venue is Account 3, 1 - 9 Birkbeck Street, London E2 6JY, which is very near Bethnal Green tube.
Please find attached the agenda and please let us know if you want to add anything. It would be very helpful if you could indicate how many people from your organisation will be attending.
I look forward to seeing you on the 11th March.
Regards
Jess Vivian
--
Adviser and Social Policy Coordinator
Tower Hamlets Citizens Advice Bureau
32 Greatorex Street
London E1 5NP
020 7247 1050

Sunday 14 February 2010

Public Accounts Committee - Ninth Report

The procurement of legal aid in England and Wales by the Legal Services Commission

This report covers the Committee's examination of the procurement and administration of legal aid in England and Wales on the basis of two reports by the Comptroller and Auditor General: his report on the qualification of the accounts of the Legal Services Commission for 2008-09

We took evidence from witnesses from the Ministry of Justice (the Department) and the Legal Services Commission on the Commission's financial management and governance, on how criminal legal aid is delivered, and on the Commission's skills and capacity to manage change.

The Legal Services Commission—a Non-Departmental Public Body of the Ministry of Justice—spends £2.1 billion a year on buying civil and criminal legal aid, mainly from solicitors and barristers, and a further £125 million on administration.

The Commission has successfully arrested the increase in legal aid spending in the last five years, but we found it is an organisation with poor financial management and internal controls and deficient management information. These weaknesses resulted in the Commission having its annual accounts qualified for 2008-09 and an assessment that its procurement and administration of criminal legal aid posed risks to value for money.

The Committee was very concerned that such weaknesses in the Commission's performance had occurred when the Ministry of Justice spends over £2 million a year itself on legal aid policy matters and on overseeing the Commission. We found confusion and uncertainty about the respective roles of the two organisations which had led to duplication of effort on some issues and a lack of clarity about who should be responsible for others.

Because the Commission is the sole buyer of legal aid, it is important that it knows it is paying the right price for this and the effects its policies are having on the sustainability of providers. But it does not know enough about the costs and profitability of firms to know if it has set its fees at an appropriate level. Moreover, there are gaps in the arrangements to assure the quality of criminal legal aid procured which make it harder to assess whether the services delivered represent good value for money.

The Commission considered the introduction of tendering would remove the imperative for it to know the market, because prices would be set by competition. The recently announced abandonment of its plans to introduce its tendering proposals following representations from the legal profession leaves the Commission not able to assess if it is paying a reasonable price for legal aid.

In particular, significant expenditure is incurred on the largest cases that take place primarily in the Crown Court and a small number of barristers are earning substantial fees from such cases. Despite playing a more active role in managing these cases, the Commission has not done the analysis to determine if its current approach is cost effective.

The Commission has been responsible for implementing significant reforms to legal aid, which were recommended by Lord Carter of Coles in 2006. However, constant changes in staff at senior level—which have been costly and disruptive—and poor planning of the changes has meant that reforms have often been delayed, have not always kept to their timetable and have not been properly evaluated to assess their impact.


see full report at:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmpubacc/322/32202.htm

Wednesday 10 February 2010

Bar Council to launch legal action against MoJ

Monday 08 February 2010 by Catherine Baksi

The Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association are set to take the government to court for the first time in 20 years over what they claim are ‘inadequate and unfair’ consultations on new fees for criminal legal aid work.

They have instructed solicitors to take the first step towards a judicial review of the consultations published respectively by the Ministry of Justice and the Legal Services Commission on advocates’ graduated fees and very high cost (criminal) cases.

The bar’s principal basis for the claim is that the consultation exercise is ‘inadequate and unfair’.

In a press release issued today the Bar Council said its decision to proceed had ‘not been taken lightly’ and it had been more than 20 years since it last instituted proceedings against the government.

It said the Bar Council had consistently put forward proposals designed to safeguard and promote the administration of justice, without seeking recourse to legal action, and had requested a change of approach from the MoJ and LSC.

The Bar Council said the conduct of the consultation process – with two separate papers on issues that are ‘inextricably linked’ and a third unpublished paper on the introduction of a single graduated fee – was so flawed that judicial review is the only option.

Bar chairman Nicholas Green QC said: ‘The Bar Council has thought long and hard about this decision but the process of consultation on these proposals, frankly, has been disjointed and chaotic.’

‘Our decision to take the first step towards bringing proceedings for judicial review has been taken after very careful consideration of the options available to us.’

‘We asked the MoJ and the LSC to adopt a co-ordinated and fair approach to decision-making. But the government has refused to alter its present consultation process and did not even respond to our request for relevant data,’ said Green.

CBA chairman Paul Mendelle QC said: ‘Our concern is not simply about fee levels or the interests of the profession – it is about the need to ensure that the justice system functions well, and that criminal trials are carried out effectively and in the public interest.’

‘These consultations affect the future of the criminal justice system including some of the most lengthy and complex criminal cases. The government is undermining the system it claims to protect; we cannot stand by and let this happen,’ he added.

An MoJ spokesman said: ‘The MoJ and the LSC received a letter from the Bar Council and CBA on 21 January requesting the deadlines for our current consultations on advocates’ graduated fees and very high cost cases be extended.

‘We consider that the current deadlines give adequate time for stakeholders to respond properly and fully to both consultations. We hope the Bar Council and CBA will reconsider their position.

‘The proposals to pilot a single graduated fee will be consulted on in due course.’

Thursday 4 February 2010

Public Accounts Committee publishes damning report on LSC


Edward-Leigh_0.jpg
Thursday 04 February 2010 by Catherine Baksi

The Ministry of Justice has announced measures to save £6m a year from the legal aid budget by ‘tightening the rules for civil legal aid’.

The announcement came as the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) published a damning report on the Legal Services Commission’s performance in managing legal aid.

PAC chairman Edward Leigh MP criticised the LSC’s ‘lax’ financial management and internal controls, noting that it lacked the ‘basic information’ about the costs and profitability of law firms that would enable it to know whether it had set its fees at an appropriate level.

He said the LSC’s plans to introduce price-competitive tendering, which it was forced to abandon, were ‘hamstrung by its lack of knowledge of the market’. The LSC did not know whether the reforms it had introduced following Lord Carter’s 2006 report were working, or what effect they were having on the sustainability of firms, he stressed.

The PAC report said the LSC’s ‘lack of grip of the basics and lack of a clear strategic direction’ were compounded by ‘confusion and uncertainty’ over its relationship with the MoJ, which led to duplication of effort.

The report noted that the LSC spends £125m a year on administration. The committee’s conclusions followed an evidence session before the PAC in December, where senior individuals from the LSC and MoJ were called to account over the highly critical findings of two previous reports into legal aid management by the comptroller and auditor general.

Law Society president Robert Heslett said it was ‘vital’ that the LSC gained a better understanding of the supplier base to prevent firms being forced to abandon legal aid or become insolvent.

An LSC spokesman said it would consider the report carefully and respond fully in due course.

Meanwhile, reforms unveiled by the MoJ this week will restrict access to domestic civil legal aid for non-UK residents. The measures will also toughen up the application of the ‘public interest’ test to ensure that cases only receive funding if there is a ‘realistic prospect of the outcome of the case providing benefit to others’.

The MoJ said it will also ‘tighten the rules’ in relation to low-value damages claims against public bodies and judicial reviews.