http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2013/02/06/important-an-urgent-call-for-your-evidenc

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

In its response to the Justice Select Committee, the MoJ said it “would have ideally liked more information” on
the costs of legal aid, and the justice system.
But the MoJ concluded:
The Law Society fully agrees that public spending must not be wasted and that savings need to be made. But
within the MoJ, civil legal aid is bearing the biggest cut as a proportion of its current budget. Legal advice for
family separation and child contact is being cut by 84% or 210,000 cases a year. Advice on welfare benefits,
currently 135,000 cases a year, will lose legal aid altogether.
The Law Society has put forward alternative proposals that more than meet the Government’s target for savings
while avoiding wholesale reductions in access to civil legal aid. But they have been dismissed by the MoJ, which
has not provided any evidence to support its position or to undermine the Society’s assumptions.
The Government’s proposed savings are not supported by evidence
Two critical concerns lie in the balance of legal aid reform; access to justice, and the pressing need to reduce
public spending. It is therefore crucial that at the heart of this process lies a system of evidence-based
policymaking.
The Law Society has conducted a detailed analysis of the Impact Assessments published with the Legal Aid,
Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, and identified a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, with no
indication of their provenance; unexplained calculations regarding the levels of savings to be achieved, with no
reference to supporting data; and optimistic extrapolation that selects unrepresentative samples and applies
them to unsuitable contexts.
Without an evidence-based process, there is no way of knowing that the reforms will achieve the savings
claimed.
The tables enclosed with this report, set out how the Government’s failure to adopt such a process leaves it
uncertain as to the effect of its changes, on demand for services or on costs to the MoJ or other Departments. It
is in no position to guarantee the savings it claims.
“However, there is a pressing need for reform to meet our objectives for legal aid, including delivering
substantial savings during the current spending review period and we must therefore proceed on the
basis of the information that we have.
“The MoJ’s savings are over-stated
Our analysis of the impact assessments published with the Legal Aid Bill shows that the Government has
overstated savings and ignored additional costs which would result from its proposals.
These are only direct impacts - there will be additional economic and social costs not captured by the
impact assessments.
Errors and uncertainties in MoJ impact assessments:
The MoJ has also ignored, or denied the existence of, published evidence that contradicts its assumptions.
The most serious flaw in the Government’s figures is over family mediations. The MoJ predicts that the cuts in
legal aid for family separation will lead to 210,000 fewer legal help cases and 45,000 fewer cases with legal
representation. But it says this will lead to an increase of only 4,000-10,000 in the number of mediations, at an
extra cost of £6m to £10m.
Legal aid currently pays £16.2 million to support family mediations, with referrals for 55,000 cases a year, of
which 14,000 cases go on to full mediation and about 8,000 reach agreement.
Based on current take-up, our report forecasts that after legal aid for family cases is cut, 90,000 extra cases
will start mediation with 45,000 cases settling. This would cost an additional £48.6m above the Government’s
plans. And Justice Ministers have stated publicly that all applications for mediation will be funded.
Examples of where claimed savings may be eroded or overtaken by additional costs:
• £1m to £2m from the Telephone Gateway legal advice service. The MoJ’s claims for these savings are
contradicted by published research. The report notes that in November 2010 the MoJ claimed savings of
£40m to £60m for the Telephone Gateway. There is no explanation of the lower figure published with the
Bill. The available evidence suggests that there is a realistic likelihood that the scheme will cost more than
if the current structure of face to face advice were maintained.
• £7m from the Supplementary Legal Aid Scheme, under which people using civil legal aid would pay 25% of
their damages into a fund to support other cases. The MoJ does not have data on damages awarded and
cannot forecast how many people would use the scheme.
• Ending automatic legal aid and means-testing some benefit claimants with between £8,000 and £16,000
could cost more in administration costs than it saves in legally aided services no longer provided. In its
response to the initial legal aid Green Paper the National Audit Office stated:
“Our knowledge suggests that the Commission would need to consider the cost implications of increasing the
scope of capital means testing to those on passporting benefits. Gaining the supporting evidence for individuals
is time-consuming and not necessarily an easy task. There is therefore a risk that the implementation costs of
this could outweigh the benefit of recouping costs from these applicants.”
Underestimating demand for family mediations £48.6m
Overestimating savings from Telephone Gateway £1m - £2m
Failure to justify claimed savings from Supplementary Legal Aid Scheme £7m
Failure to justify savings from Legal Services Commission administration £1m

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

The MoJ has also ignored, or denied the existence of, published evidence that contradicts its assumptions.
The most serious flaw in the Government’s figures is over family mediations. The MoJ predicts that the cuts in
legal aid for family separation will lead to 210,000 fewer legal help cases and 45,000 fewer cases with legal
representation. But it says this will lead to an increase of only 4,000-10,000 in the number of mediations, at an
extra cost of £6m to £10m.
Legal aid currently pays £16.2 million to support family mediations, with referrals for 55,000 cases a year, of
which 14,000 cases go on to full mediation and about 8,000 reach agreement.
Based on current take-up, our report forecasts that after legal aid for family cases is cut, 90,000 extra cases
will start mediation with 45,000 cases settling. This would cost an additional £48.6m above the Government’s
plans. And Justice Ministers have stated publicly that all applications for mediation will be funded.
Examples of where claimed savings may be eroded or overtaken by additional costs:
• £1m to £2m from the Telephone Gateway legal advice service. The MoJ’s claims for these savings are
contradicted by published research. The report notes that in November 2010 the MoJ claimed savings of
£40m to £60m for the Telephone Gateway. There is no explanation of the lower figure published with the
Bill. The available evidence suggests that there is a realistic likelihood that the scheme will cost more than
if the current structure of face to face advice were maintained.
• £7m from the Supplementary Legal Aid Scheme, under which people using civil legal aid would pay 25% of
their damages into a fund to support other cases. The MoJ does not have data on damages awarded and
cannot forecast how many people would use the scheme.
• Ending automatic legal aid and means-testing some benefit claimants with between £8,000 and £16,000
could cost more in administration costs than it saves in legally aided services no longer provided. In its
response to the initial legal aid Green Paper the National Audit Office stated:
“Our knowledge suggests that the Commission would need to consider the cost implications of increasing the
scope of capital means testing to those on passporting benefits. Gaining the supporting evidence for individuals
is time-consuming and not necessarily an easy task. There is therefore a risk that the impthat the implementation costs of
this could outweigh the benefit of recouping costs from these applicants.”implementation costs of

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

Costs that the MoJ has ignored are:
• Extra court time used by people who represent themselves. Although Judges and academic researchers have
given evidence to the Government showing that courts will be slowed down by people representing
themselves, the MoJ said there was “no firm evidence that unrepresented cases on average impose
additional operational cost burdens on courts and tribunals.”
• Higher costs for other government departments and society. Legal advice will not be available for the
595,000 Legal Help cases that currently qualify, and problems with housing, benefits, education and
immigration will not be sorted out. Using data from the Civil and Social Justice Survey and the Legal
Services Commission, Citizens Advice estimated that:
- For every £1 of legal aid expenditure on housing advice, the state potentially saves £2.34.
- For every £1 of legal aid expenditure on debt advice, the state potentially saves £2.98.
- For every £1 of legal aid expenditure on benefits advice, the state potentially saves £8.80.
- For every £1 of legal aid expenditure on employment advice, the state potentially saves £7.13.
It isn’t too late for the Government to reconsider its cuts to legal aid, and look again at the data underpinning
its arguments.
If you would like to support the Sound Off For Justice campaign in favour of justice and against the
Government’s changes, please visit http://soundoffforjustice.org

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

The Law Society’s Principles of Legal Aid
1. The right to legal representation is a fundamental principle of a civilised society and is a cornerstone of our
way of life.
2. No one should be denied legal help because they cannot afford it.
3. Everyone should be entitled to challenge the decisions of public authorities, institutions and big business
and receive the help to do so.
4. Access to justice needs to be both fair and efficient with the system free of waste, unnecessary
bureaucracy and expenditure.
5. The courts, their officers, suppliers and contractors have a duty to manage the judicial process with
fairness and efficiency.
6. The state has a right to recoup money from those who misuse the system

It is essential that the Ministry implements its Spending Review settlement on the basis of a full
understanding of the cost and value of its services, so that financial cuts are best targeted to minimise
the impact on frontline services. Yet the Ministry and its arm’s length bodies currently lack the detailed
information they would need to do this.
Without combined financial and operational performance data and a full understanding of its costs, there
remains a risk that, in implementing its Spending Review settlement, the Ministry will not achieve best
value for money and will not understand properly the impact of cost reductions on frontline services.
Cost reductions should be based on a full understanding of relative costs of alternative cuts and a proper
understanding of the value that will be lost, in particular so that a cut in one area does not lead to
additional expenditure elsewhere.
Public Accounts Committee, Report on Ministry of Justice Financial Management, 18 January 2011
Justice Select Committee, 30 March 2011
We are disappointed in the dearth of evidence on legal aid expenditure at case level to enable the
identification of key influences on cost. We note the difficulties in collating quantitative evidence for useful
national and international observations to be made, and we believe that a series of small-scale domestic
qualitative research studies, examining the drivers of cost per case, would provide the Government with
more valuable data to inform its efforts to reduce spending. It may be possible to reduce the amount of
legal work required, for example, by reducing the complexity of particular areas of law, and thereafter to
adjust the level of fixed fees accordingly. (Paragraph 30)
The Ministry of Justice needs to develop a greater understanding about what is driving demand and the cost
of cases in order for there to be confidence in its estimates of the impact of its proposals for reform.
Reducing spending on legal aid may have financial implications — and indeed may inflate costs — in other
parts of the legal system. (Paragraph 37)
Government response to Justice Select Committee 3rd Report, June 2011
The Government accepts that the evidence base available to inform policy making can always be improved. The
Impact Assessment that we have published alongside our response to consultation draws on the existing evidence
base to assess the impacts the programme of reform is expected to have, both on the costs of legal aid, and on
the wider system of justice. These identify a number of areas where we would ideally have liked more
information. We set out below the main pieces of analytical work which are planned or underway to address
these gaps, including those that have been raised as being of specific concern both before and during the
consultation period. This work will help us improve the evidence base and improve future policy making and
implementation. However, there is a pressing need for reform to meet our objectives for legal aid, including
delivering substantial savings during the current spending review period and we must therefore proceed on the

basis of the information that we have.
Written by the Law Society
Chancery lane
etc etc
copied and pasted by audacious law book reader wouldbequalitymoneysaver as a service of love and devotion to mse and any other lurkers who can offer support.

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

If the horse won't go to that lovely refreshing water, the horsewoman will bring the horse to drink,drink drink.

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

CAMPAIGN SUPPORTED BY:
mumsnet
shelter
the WI
gingerbread
eaves putting women first
boaz trust
justice for all
the childrens legal centre
rights of women
hane and co
http://soundoffforjustice.org/

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

Has MSE Martin and MSE Admin heard of this Campaign?
Might MSE get behind it?xx

cockaleekee

Perhaps it would be helpful for you to call your support worker? You seem to be talking to yourself ...

Deep_In_Debt

Oh my word...

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

I shall ignore these insults and get on with the page views and thanks on the pages.
Those on MSE who know me will understand the reason I posted them was for clarity and to answer any questions forthcoming.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^:money::cool::cool::cool::eek::eek: