Legal aid plan: funds cut and pay static

Legal aid solicitors are fuming after the government indicated that it is set to launch a two-pronged offensive on the way the system is funded, firstly by slashing 150 million off the crime and asylum budget and by maintaining much-maligned current rates of pay.

The pay rate news emerged after the Lord Chancellor's Department (LCD) unveiled two consultation papers aimed at cutting spending on crime by restricting the advice solicitors can give at police stations and courts, and on asylum by capping the time they can spend on cases and imposing maximum fees (for full details, see page 3).

An LCD spokesman said the proposals were justified, as in many cases at the police station or in the early stages of asylum applications the presence of a solicitor was unnecessary.

Writing to practitioners groups, Lord Chancellor Lord Irvine said the focus of reform was on providing better value for money and warned that pay was likely to remain static except for the most experienced immigration practitioners.

'I believe that any increase in remuneration can only be at the expense of unacceptable cuts to client services,' he explained.

A final decision will be made later in the year.

Rodney Warren, chairman of the Law Society's access to justice committee and director of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association, said: 'The Lord Chancellor has an obligation under the Access to Justice Act to ensure that there is a sufficient supplier base in the long term.

'It is disappointing that he is suggesting yet again that there is sufficiency of supply when the evidence is to the contrary.'

Law Society chief executive Janet Paraskeva criticised as 'unacceptable' the proposed restrictions on advice at the police station.

'The right to advice through legal aid must not be removed for those who cannot afford to pay for their own lawyer,' she insisted.

She welcomed plans to develop an accreditation system for immigration but added that experienced practitioners can take more than double the time proposed to deal with an initial claim or appeal, and urged the government to ensure that any limits laid down were 'realistic'.

Legal Aid Practitioners Group director Richard Miller said good-quality asylum and crime advice in the early stages often removed the need for appeals and adjournments.

He added that the proposals could cost more than they save and undo work that has speeded up procedures.

Chris Randall, executive member of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, said it was 'shocking' that the time limits proposed fell below the reasonable guidelines set by the Legal Services Commission.

Paula Rohan summarises last week's legal aid proposals

Immigration/asylum

Cutting the time permitted for providing initial advice to five hours in asylum cases and three hours in immigration cases.

Maximum fees and disbursements for preparation of appeals.

The top fee for applying for leave to appeal at the tribunal will be 150.

A multi-tier accreditation scheme for immigration and asylum practitioners that will determine the type of work they are allowed to do.

The most experienced lawyers will receive enhanced fees.

Introducing unique file numbers for each client aimed at preventing duplication of work and monitoring costs of individual cases.

Crime

Extending the individual case contracts system to cover all very high-cost criminal cases (those costing upwards of 150,000 or lasting more than 25 days at trial).

Reducing free police station advice, either by restricting it to telephone advice or abandoning it in certain circumstances, for example where a suspect is providing samples in drink driving offences.

Narrowing the interests of justice test to cover only cases where imprisonment is the likely sentence.

Removing the right to stand-alone advice and assistance for people facing criminal investigations where the interests of justice test is not satisfied; this would exclude cases such as motoring offences where the penalty is a fine.

Restricting the court duty solicitor scheme in certain cases, such as representation of clients who are not in custody in non-imprisonable cases.

Other options include applying an interests of justice test before representation can be provided, and removing the ability to apply for representation orders while acting as duty solicitor.

Imposing a tougher system for recouping legal aid payments from those who are convicted and can afford to pay, or who fail to provide evidence of means.