Patricia Gore asked if the £4 million spent on the Family Advice and Information Service (FAInS) pilot can be re-imbursed into the legal aid pot (see [2007] Gazette, 13 September, 17).


In fact, this money has already been paid directly to FAInS providers. FAInS providers received an additional payment per FAInS case in recognition of the additional work required of FAInS practitioners (some additional form filling and reporting was required), and also in recognition of the experience of these practitioners (FAInS practitioners were required to have at least two years' post-qualification experience).



The fact that the £4 million extra paid to solicitors did not mean clients got a better service merely demonstrates that the problems clients face will not be solved by paying lawyers more. The reality is that many clients do not know where to go for advice and often cannot get in if they do.



I do not agree that the money spent on the pilot was wasted - FAInS has improved our understanding of the realities of family practice and has helped to inform Legal Services Commission policy-making. Our reform programme may have moved on since FAInS, but we have been able to use a lot of the interim research, borne out by the final research, to inform our thinking.



For example, contrary to Ms Gore's comments that providers refer clients to other agencies as a matter of course, the FAInS research showed that, in fact, very few family clients are referred to other services (only 5% of the research sample). That suggests that co-locating services may be a better way of achieving integration of services to improve outcomes for clients. This is reflected in our future strategy for delivering integrated advice through community legal advice services.



Crispin Passmore, Director, Community Legal Service, Legal Services Commission, London