Accusations of ‘spin’ levelled at Legal Aid Board as ‘satisfaction survey’ over legal aid published days after row over bank charges case funding

After a week of arguments between the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the Govan Law Centre over SLAB’s refusal to fund bank charges cases via civil legal aid, the Legal Aid Board today faced fresh allegations of ‘spin’ & ‘cover up’ as it published a ‘feel good survey’ compiled by MVA consultancy reporting there were “high levels of satisfaction with the legal aid procedures operated by the Board, particularly its online services”.

MVA consultancy were selected by SLAB earlier in February 2010 to carry out nationwide survey of solicitors who provide work under legal assistance. The survey was carried out over six weeks by way of a telephone administered questionnaire to a number of randomly selected practitioners throughout Scotland.

A senior solicitor from an Edinburgh law firm hit out today at the way in which the Scottish Legal Aid Board has attempted to cap an ongoing row over the way it awards civil legal aid funds to those seeking access to justice in Scottish Courts by the timely publishing of a “feel good survey depicting SLAB in a better light than it deserves”. The solicitor went onto allege the timely publishing of the survey “was typical media spin from a quango which found itself at the heart of a slew of bad headlines over questionable funding decisions.”

He continued : “Happy smiley face surveys aside, SLAB should be held more to account for the way in which it awards or refuses civil legal aid to clients who are routinely denied access to justice in the Scottish courts through a lack of funding due to blatantly prejudiced decisions taken by the board.”

The Scottish Legal Aid Board survey media release of 10 December 2010 follows :

Legal aid solicitor survey shows high satisfaction and commitment to legal aid (pdf)

An independent survey for the Scottish Legal Aid Board has shown a commitment to legal aid and overall high levels of satisfaction with the legal aid procedures operated by the Board, particularly its online services.

The Scottish Legal Aid Board today published the findings of its independent survey of legal aid solicitors. The survey involved phone interviews with 416 solicitors, across civil and criminal legal aid firms, to gather evidence of the profession’s views on legal aid and the guidance and support provided to them by the Board.

Findings included:

- A significant majority of solicitors are willing to take on more civil legal aid clients (in 2005 43% had said that they had stopped taking on new clients, this is now down to just 2%).

- Solicitors are very positive about continuing to provide legal aid services; 88% “certain” / “likely to” be doing legal aid in three year’s time (compared to 63% in 2005, a 26% increase). These findings support the Board’s experiences of increasing numbers of solicitors wishing to do legal aid work – both civil and criminal legal aid.

- High levels of satisfaction with legal aid processes and guidelines available from the Board. (With very low levels of dissatisfaction indicated across applications and criminal accounts. More varied views were expressed about civil legal aid accounts processes).

- Very strong support for the Board’s online legal aid processes (e.g. 92% for those who submit criminal summary applications were satisfied with the process).

The survey also sought solicitors’ views on aspects of the Summary Justice Reforms on behalf of the Scottish Government, which included reform of Summary Criminal Legal Aid. Findings included:

- 80% of solicitors felt that allowing appointed solicitors to grant criminal ABWOR (assistance by way of representation) for guilty pleas had succeeded in helping to bring about earlier resolution of cases

- about two thirds of solicitors felt that the changes to remuneration were assisting in the earlier resolution of cases.

Lindsay Montgomery, C.B.E., Chief Executive of the Scottish Legal Aid Board commented : “Overall the results are very positive and encouraging not only about the board’s processes and communications, but also in terms of solicitors’ positive attitudes to continuing to provide legal aid services. This reflects the board’s experience of increasing numbers of firms registering to undertake legal aid work. We are already looking at areas where levels of satisfaction are lower than average (albeit still the minority view) to establish where there might be scope for development. I am very grateful to those who took part in the survey.”

"Solicitors are on the front line of legal aid provision and are integral to enabling access to justice, so seeking the profession’s views in this independent way gives us useful information on solicitors’ experiences of the Board’s systems, which will be used to further develop and improve legal aid policy, practices and procedures.”

The summary research briefing (from MVA Consulting) and full results are available on the Board’s website at http://www.slab.org.uk (if anyone comes up with the direct link to this consultation, which SLAB 'forgot' to add in its Press Statement, please send it in as the SLAB website is a mess – Ed)

Scottish Legal Aid Board responds to Govan Law Centre’s accusations of denial of access to justice in Sharp v Bank of Scotland 'bank charges' case

The Scottish Legal Aid Board have issued a statement in response to accusations from the Govan Law Centre and its principal, solicitor Mike Dailly, that SLAB’s refusal to fund a bank charges case via civil legal aid amounts to a denial of access to justice for the GLC’s client.

Statement from the Scottish Legal Aid Board (pdf) Re: Bank charges - Sharp v Bank of Scotland

A spokesperson for the Board stated, “We’re surprised and disappointed that Govan Law Centre (GLC) has publicised this case in its press release, in view of the fact that the Board only received their latest letter yesterday, which raised fresh issues and asked us to consider additional information not previously given to us. The Board has not yet had the opportunity to fully consider these new issues nor to provide a substantive response.

When the initial application for legal aid was lodged it had to be rejected as necessary information was not provided. Solicitors undertaking civil legal aid work are aware from our guidance what information is needed to allow an application to be considered.

Following receipt, the application was considered but refused as it did not meet the reasonableness test for civil legal aid. No mention was made of wider public interest by Govan Law Centre at this time.

A review application was then made asking us to re-consider our refusal of civil legal aid. The review application indicated that the case could be of relevance to the wider public interest in Scotland in that if the case was successful it could lead the way for many others to make similar claims.

However, the review application did not provide the detailed information required to support the claim of a wider public interest. Again, the Board has published detailed guidance for solicitors on this, which was not adhered to. As such the review application was refused.

Yesterday, on 7 December 2010, we received the letter referred to in today’s press release from the applicant’s solicitors asking us to take into account certain additional aspects supportive of the applicant’s claim and to look again at the refusal. The solicitor’s letter provides new information, including the question of seeking a protective costs order.

The Board is considering re-opening the application as it may be more cost effective to do this rather than insisting on a fresh legal aid application. Further information will however be needed in relation to the points raised in the latest letter. On the information provided to the Board initially and on review, we are satisfied that the refusal decisions were appropriate especially with regard to the guidance we have issued about civil legal aid applications.

The Board entirely rejects entirely Mr Dailly’s assertions and are confident of the Board’s role in monitoring and safeguarding access to justice in Scotland.

Over the past two years there has been a substantial increase in the numbers of people receiving civil legal aid and benefiting from wider access to justice through services such as grant funded projects and in-court advisers, which are funded by the Board.

However, it is also important that the Board properly applies the statutory test for civil legal aid. In doing this the Board has to rely on the information provided by the solicitors in applications and the extent to which this information meets the Board’s requirements as set out in our guidance.

GLC’s press release suggests that legal aid is unlikely to be obtained for certain cases. This is not accurate. Each application is considered on its own merit and the question of whether legal aid is granted is very much dependant on the quality of the application made by the solicitor in relation to providing the necessary information to enable the statutory tests to be met.

As this application is still “live” it would be inappropriate for the Board to give further details or comment.”

Govan Law Centre accuses Scottish Legal Aid Board of denying access to justice in bank charges case Sharp v Bank of Scotland

The Govan Law Centre has today accused the Scottish Legal Aid Board of denying access to justice to one of its clients in a bank charges case after SLAB refused for a second time (after an internal appeal) to fund the case (Sharp v Bank of Scotland) with civil legal aid. The Govan Law Centre (GLC) is further reported to have said SLAB may face a court challenge over their refusal to grant legal aid.

SLAB’s refusal to fund the case via civil legal aid is reported to have been on the grounds of a "cost-benefit analysis test", based on the assumption that "a privately paying client of modest means would not pursue an ordinary action in these circumstances".

The action, which began as a small claim was directed by the sheriff to proceed as an ordinary cause on the Bank of Scotland’s application, on the basis of the legal complexity of the case.

The Govan Law Centre was reported to have agreed to cap all of its fees and outlays at a nominal sum (£375) in order to keep the risk to the public purse to a minimum. However SLAB rejected all arguments the case was not just about money, but was a matter of huge public interest, and that the action also sought an order to prohibit the future imposition of overdraft charges under s 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Reported on the Govan Law Centre’s own blog, the GLC's Principal Solicitor, Mike Dailly said: "Govan Law Centre believes the Scottish Legal Aid Board has dealt a death blow to tens of thousands of people in Scotland who would like to obtain a refund of unfair bank charges. We believe that the Board has acted unlawfully, unreasonably and irrationally, and we will challenge the Board in order to protect our clients' European Community law rights. Once again the Board has demonstrated that it cannot be entrusted with the responsibility for monitoring and safeguarding access to justice in Scotland. The Board does not appear to understand access to justice in Scotland; in many respects the Board has become a major threat to vulnerable Scots securing access to justice.".

The law centre also announced : Today, GLC has written to SLAB advising that in order to avoid the need for a petition for judicial review of the Board’s refusal of civil legal aid in this case, as Wednesbury unreasonable, et separatim irrational and illegal, we would ask the Board to reconsider its decision to refuse civil legal aid under reference to the following relevant and significant considerations:

"If the Board granted civil legal aid then in relation to the cost/benefit analysis, GLC's client and this firm would undertake to seek a protective expenses order to cap expenses at the equivalent small claims limit, and if this was not granted the Board could reconsider its position;

The Board will be aware of the wider Scottish public interest in this case, and that if civil legal aid cannot granted for bank charges cases due to the cost/benefit analysis applied by the Board, as in this case, the Board will be acting unlawfully in relation to section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and inter alia the applicant’s entitlement to a fair and public hearing. The Board will note the court has already assessed this case as dealing with complex and difficult factual and legal issues in determining to remit same to the ordinary court. Without the benefit of civil legal aid our client will denied access to justice; and The applicant’s claim proceeds upon a case under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 and separately, the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Said Regulations were enacted by the UK to implement its European Community law (EC) obligations under the Unfair Consumer Contract Terms Directive 93/13/EC, while the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended) implemented the UK’s obligations under the Consumer Credit Directive 2008/48/EC (and earlier). The foregoing rights that the applicant enjoys are guaranteed by the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The refusal to grant legal aid in our client’s case is a contravention of Article 47 of the Charter. Article 47 provides as follows :

“Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial : Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Article.

Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law. Everyone shall have the possibility of being advised, defended and represented. Legal aid shall be made available to those who lack sufficient resources in so far as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice”.

Doughnuts, principles and no £6m surplus : Law Society’s backroom plot to take over Legal Aid Board attacked by top QC Paul McBride

Last week, Law Society’s Access to Justice Committee Convener Mike Dailly suggested Law Society should take over Legal Aid Board & SLCC. A BACKROOM PLOT by the Law Society of Scotland to take over the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, exposed late last week by Scottish Law Reporter has featured in today’s Scottish newspapers, with top QC Paul McBride, himself a board member of SLAB, coming out strongly criticising the idea lawyers should be able to award themselves legal aid and regulate it, all under the guise of saving money for taxpayers.

Mr McBride likened the Law Society’s Access to Justice Committee’s suggestion as akin ‘to putting Homer Simpson in charge of a doughnut factory’.

Even worse news was to follow for Mr Dailly on the subject of the SLCC’s massive surplus, allegedly £6 million pounds according to statements issued by the Law Society’s Access to Justice Committee, which now turns out to be false, with the SLCC claiming they have a current surplus of around £1.5 million or less.

Report from the Daily Record follows :

It's like putting Homer Simpson in charge of a doughnut factory; Lawyer slams legal aid plan.

Byline: John Ferguson

A TOP lawyer has blasted proposals to put solicitors in charge of their own legal aid payments as "like putting Homer Simpson in charge of a doughnut factory".

Paul McBride QC spoke out after an influential committee suggested scrapping the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) to save money.

The Law Society of Scotland's access to justice committee want to shut down the SLAB and hand over their role to a new "one-stop shop" body funded and managed by lawyers.

But McBride, a SLAB member, slammed the proposed changes as "preposterous". He said: "SLAB exist to enable access to justice and to make sure legal aid delivers the maximum value for the taxpayer.

"The board serve a vital role and save the public an enormous amount every year. The idea of putting lawyers in charge of administering money to themselves is preposterous and unworkable. "This is like putting Homer Simpson in charge of a doughnut factory."

The access to justice committee's plan would transfer the responsibility for administering legal aid to a new body created out of the Initiative Committee chairman Mike Dailly claimed the changes could save pounds 40million. Dailly, of Govan Law Centre in Glasgow, said: "We can either sit back and wait for front·line legal services for vulnerable people to be cut or we can seize the initiative.

"We are confident a new one-stop shop that handled all legal complaints and payments could save the taxpayer up to pounds 40million over the next five years."

But the SLAB hit back, saying they save the public "tens of millions" a year by limiting unnecessary and excessive payments to lawyers and cracking down on fraud.

A spokesman said: "It is unlikely the proposals would lead to significant savings and may risk higher costs to the taxpayer."

In an update to this report, Mr Dailly has now complained to the Press Complaints Commission about the Daily Record’s story, reprinted above.

Mr Dailly’s complaint to the PCC, reported by The JournalOnline – the Law Society of Scotland’s own in-house law magazine, states : “Mr Dailly's main complaint is that contrary to what was stated in the article, and a supporting editorial, "the Access to Justice Committee has never suggested that solicitors be 'in charge of their own legal aid payments', nor that they should 'manage' the proposed new one-stop body, nor that they should ‘administer money to themselves’. Instead, we pointed to the obvious scope for making savings in terms of administration and overhead costs, with a view to ensuring vulnerable members of the Scottish public did not lose out in front-line services with the forthcoming expected severe public sector cuts".

“He adds that had the paper contacted him before printing the articles, he could have advised that Mr McBride "was misrepresenting our committee’s position and providing a false factual basis for his attack"; and also provided evidence of the Board's administration costs.”

“In addition to Mr McBride's connection with the Scottish Legal Aid Board, it is also pointed out that he provides regular legal advice to the Daily Record in checking the paper for potential defamatory content, and has a potential conflict of interest as adviser to the Conservative Party on legal affairs, given that the Conservative Party is in Government and implementing cuts to public funding.”

However, legal insiders have indicated to Scottish Law Reporter the Law Society remains of the view it should take over SLAB’s duties and those of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, with secret discussions ongoing … so it would appear we at SLR, and the Daily Record are on the scent of the missing doughnuts ...

Dailly's Law : Law Society ‘takeover plot’ for SLCC & Legal Aid Board backfires over leak of law complaints quango’s alleged £6 million surplus

Govan Law Centre’s Mike Dailly suggests Law Society should take over Legal Aid Board & SLCC. A BACKROOM PLOT by the Law Society of Scotland to assume control of the Scottish Legal Aid Board & the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has somewhat backfired after key financial information alleging the costly law complaints quango is holding a whopping £6 million pound surplus was provided to a newspaper by the Law Society of Scotland's Access to justice committee, headed by Mike Dailly, boss of the Glasgow based Govan Law Centre.

The audacious campaign by the Law Society of Scotland to take over the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission on the pretext of saving money was mounted early this week, insiders say on the back of the expected publicity surrounding the Coalition Government's announcement yesterday of 'quango bonfire' savings. Legal insiders claim the Law Society hoped their campaign to take control of the way legal aid is distributed in Scotland as well as the 'independent' handling of complaints by the SLCC would succeed, given their highlighting of the costs of running the Scottish Legal Aid Board and massive surpluses held by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, costs which of course, could be saved if the Law Society ran SLAB & the SLCC.

The Law Society’s Access to Justice Committee (sounds like a quango itself – Ed) released a raft of information to justify its grab for control of SLAB & the SLCC, simultaneously in “The Firm” magazine & the “JournalOnline” late last week.

The “JournalOnline” version stated : “The committee, convened by Mike Dailly of Govan Law Centre, believes there is "self-evident scope to make major savings" by, in effect, breaking up the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) and sharing out its functions.

At present, it costs £12.7m per annum in administrative costs (excluding pension fund liability) for SLAB to manage the legal aid budget of around £156m. The committee believes there is scope for savings of up to £40m over the next five years. Measures it is currently examining include:

* administrative savings by merging the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (which is paid for by a levy on Scottish solicitors, with a current surplus of £6m) with slimmed-down functions of SLAB, including responsibility for regulating and administering payments from the fund, strategic planning, monitoring and intervening to ensure sufficient provision for access to justice across Scotland;
* shared and lower overheads by locating the new "Scottish Legal Services Commission" in modern premises with lower maintenance costs, preferably outside Edinburgh, for example, West Lothian or Lanarkshire;
* delegation to solicitors to undertake full client income verification tests to implement the current means testing of legal aid, act as "service gatekeepers" like GPs, and collect client contributions to the fund, with a concomitant reduction in bureaucracy on firms; all subject to tough, independent, compliance checks through Audit Scotland.

Mr Dailly was reported as saying : "We can either sit back and wait for frontline legal services for vulnerable people to be cut, or we can seize the initiative and identify innovative solutions. We’ll be producing detailed re-modelling, but are confident a new ‘one-stop-shop’ which handled all legal complaints, payments, and strategic planning could save the taxpayer up to £40m over the next five years, with further savings over the longer term. Such savings would avoid the need to cut access to vital front line legal services for the Scottish public. The Access to Justice Committee believes a radical process of reorganisation and simplification should form part of an early Access to Justice or Legal Aid Bill after the Scottish parliamentary elections in May 2011."

Curiously the two versions, although reporting the same events & comments of the same “Access to Justice Committee” headed by Dailly and quoting the Committee’s Convener directly, differed significantly in respect of accusations contained in the “JournalOnline” version that the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission was holding a massive £6 million pounds in surplus while the version in “The Firm” left out the SLCC’s apparently leaked financial data.

What's £6 million pounds between friends ? Answer : Just a drop in the ocean as Law Society Committee claims savings can be made at Legal Aid regulator & discredited complaints quango.

However, earlier this week, the ‘story’ found its way into the Herald newspaper, the day after Mr Dailly wrote on his webblog at “The Firm”, also alleging the SLCC were holding a £6 million pound surplus. The Herald was apparently provided with a release by the Law Society/Mr Dailly continuing the allegations the SLCC was holding the £6 million surplus although no such media release currently exists on the Law Society of Scotland’s website (clearly they didnt want it appearing in other newspapers – Ed)

The next day however, a letter of correction appeared in the Herald sent in by Mr Dailly curtly stating “I Write to correct the figure we provided as the surplus held by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, or SLCC (“Law Society committee to seek abolition of legal aid quango”, The Herald, 12 October). In our news release we gave a figure of £6m. However, the latest accounts of the SLCC, for the year ended June 30, 2009, showed a net annual surplus of £1.56m. We do not know what the annual surplus for the year ended June 30, 2010 will be until those accounts are published, and therefore, we await confirmation of the net total surplus, and net assets, held by the SLCC.”

A tale of two surpluses : SLCC’s £6 million pound surplus blogged by Dailly, reported in The Herald, & corrected the next day by letter.

Today an insider alleged “someone talked” at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, citing information regarding the SLCC’s current finances is not currently in the public domain, as the SLCC is yet to release its annual accounts & reports, due in the next few weeks sometime before or during December 2010. The insider went onto say “a significant amount of inside information was coming out of the SLCC”, however this comes as no surprise, given the quango’s links back to Drumsheugh Gardens.

Some might wonder why a law complaints quango, which costs over £200K a month to run, which is dishing out expenses to its board members almost on a duck-house basis, is apparently handling little in the way of complaints and is apparently battling with its own remit against consumer groups, may be holding such a large surplus equivalent to a lotto win if Mr Dailly’s information proves to be correct.

The Scottish Legal Aid Board said it would not comment on the story, however the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission issued a statement on the proposal from the Law Society's Access to Justice Committee suggesting a merger of the SLCC and the Scottish Legal Aid Board.

The SLCC’s release stated : “The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission described the suggestion of a merger as "curious" and added: "Both organisations have two very defined and different roles in helping the public to access justice and both organisations are funded in very different ways. It is not clear from the article how well these respective roles are understood."

It should be noted the SLCC have not challenged, confirmed nor denied the figure of £6 million pounds revealed in the press by Mr Dailly’s Access to Justice Committee …

Law Society President Ian Smart & Govan Law Centre’s Mike Dailly debate Legal Services Bill reforms – solicitors don't price fix !

Debate over the proposed reforms to the legal profession’s business model in Scotland as contained in the Legal Services Bill, currently going through the Scottish Parliament, finally made television yesterday with appearances from the Ian Smart, the current Law Society President, and Mike Dailly of the Govan Law Centre. Missing in action from the debate was someone from the consumer lobby, who stand to gain the most from the proposed reforms, which will allow Scottish consumers a much needed choice in who they wish to purchase legal services from.

Banks, supermarkets and others are eventually expected to enter the legal services market if the bill becomes law, hence the ‘headless chickens’ syndrome affecting some parts of the legal profession, reported in the Herald newspaper HERE last week, and covered in Peter Cherbi’s “Diary of Injustice” law blog HERE

Ian Smart & Mike Dailly discuss the Legal Services Bill, splits between lawyers, and price fixing (solicitors of course, do not price fix , haha – Ed)

Threats of legal action from solicitor bring Ministers cash pledge after ‘blunder’

After the Government seemingly reneged on funding pledges to organisations, it apparently took the threat of legal action from well known solicitor Mike Dailly of the Govan Law Centre in Glasgow, to have those funding pledges restored …

Ministers in cash pledge after blunder over letters

GERRY BRAIDEN

Scottish ministers have moved to head off accusations of political vindictiveness after an administrative blunder was blamed for the reneging on cash pledges to community organisations.

More than 20 groups across Scotland were told on Friday afternoon they had been successful in their applications for funding from the Scottish Government's equality unit only to be told hours later that a decision had "not actually been made" by the Communities Minister Stewart Maxwell and that "all the letters which were sent out were done so prematurely".

Civil servants claimed they had simply been preparing drafts so they could move quickly once a decision had been reached and that those who had been wrongly told could discuss the matter.

However, following allegations by one recipient, Mike Dailly, of the Govan Law Centre, that the U-turn was politically motivated and that he would pursue legal action if the promised £250,000 did not materialise the government pledged yesterday that all those who received the first letter would get the funding.

Mr Dailly, a solicitor and Labour Party activist, had applied for the money from the Race, Religion and Refugee Initiative to establish a Govanhill Law Centre, providing legal advice on housing and welfare to black minority ethnic communities in Glasgow's south side.

He had claimed it was more than coincidental that he had received the second e-mail claiming no decision had been made on the same day he was quoted publicly criticising an SNP councillor who had campaigned against poor housing in a Govanhill street where he owns and rents a flat to a Romanian family in a rundown building for £500 a month.

Mr Dailly said he thought Councillor Jahangir Hanif "was part of the solution but is clearly part of the problem".

After being told on Friday evening that no decision had been made and that the offer had been sent in error, Mr Dailly said he found it incredible that the head of the equalities department, Yvonne Strachan, could send a £250,000 offer without ministerial approval and threatened to take the government to court.

Government sources have accused Mr Dailly of attempting to make political capital out of an administrative error and that no organisation was in danger of losing any money. His threats came amid accusations of cronyism after the government handed hundreds of thousands of pounds in public funds to an Islamic group run by an SNP activist.

Around £215,000 was awarded to the Scottish Islamic Foundation, a group run by Osama Saeed, an SNP member who is to contest the Glasgow Central seat in the next Westminster election.

The issue also spilled on to the Glasgow East by-election, with Labour's Margaret Curran saying she found it "exceptional that this scale of error could be made" and that it was a "very off way of doing business", while her SNP rival John Mason said a mountain was being made of a molehill and that the awarding of the funding yesterday was evidence of "a government making quick decisions".

Last night a Scottish Government spokesman said: "Ministers were already content to approve grants to all the organisations who received these letters early, as per the recommendation from officials.

"However, draft letters were issued prematurely in error before the final, but imminent, ministerial sign-off.

"The content of the letters would not have changed between draft and final versions."

Scottish Legal Aid Board running costs come in for criticism - make the industry pay instead ?

SLAB, the Scottish Legal Aid Board, which manages legal aid in Scotland, has come in for some harsh criticism over its costs.

Well, since the money goes to the legal profession, because the Law Society of Scotland has ensured that no one other than a lawyer can claim legal aid, how about making the legal profession pay for SLAB's running costs ? Problem solved !

The Herald reports :

Legal aid ‘wastes cash on red tape’

DAVID LEASK

Running costs at the Scottish Legal Aid Board have jumped two-thirds in a decade despite a substantial drop in its caseload.

The quango yesterday confirmed that its administration budget increased by 65% over the past 10 years to nearly £13m this year while the number of grants it issued fell some 34,000 in the same period.

The board, however, defended extra spending on staff and computer systems which it believes will give the taxpayer better value for money on its biggest outgoing, the aid it provides for hundreds of thousands of legal and civil cases.

It did so as its record on red tape was attacked by one of Scotland's most prominent solicitors, Mike Dailly of the Govan Law Centre, in a major speech.

Mr Dailly yesterday told an audience of senior lawyers and industry experts that the board was "diverting" public money into bureaucracy while access to civil justice became a privilege only of the very poor, who are entitled to legal aid, and the very rich, who can afford their own lawyers.

Speaking at an Edinburgh conference sponsored by the Faculty of Advocates, Mr Dailly said: "Access seems to have regressed while bureaucracy has widened. Legal aid expenditure is officially demand-led and uncapped. Yet it might be thought what has happened is more public money has been diverted into bureaucracy and devices which have squeezed demand and restricted take-up."

He added: "Legal aid bureaucracy has grown exponentially over the last few years. Often a client does not have the information now required by the board and solicitors will have to write to local authorities, previous employers, and so on. The time and effort now required to obtain legal aid has become a major task in its own right."

Mr Dailly's Govan Law Centre is one of several community-based legal practices designed, like the board, to help ensure fair access to justice for all. Many clients are poor. But even those on benefits can struggle to get legal aid. The board is currently responsible for around £160m of grants a year, although it is able to claim some of that back when clients it funds win their cases. Its official net spending on grants was £150m in 2006-2007, up from £136m in 1996-1997. Mr Dailly, however, does not believe that this rise warrants increased spending on administration.

Solicitors, he said, are voting with their feet. He said: "The board confirms that in 2006 there were 736 firms registered for civil legal aid work, while in 2007 that number fell by 8% to 678." Forms for legal aid, he said, were long and off-putting, some stretching to 40 pages in length.

A spokesman for the board said much of the new spending on administration was designed to cut bureaucracy. Some of the administration budget went on new computers that are helping solicitors make online applications for grants.

"We have also invested in staff who are involved in quality insurance and checking for fraud. Our staff uncovered one fraud worth £1.7m," he said.

Higher administration costs, the board argues, have helped save money on grants.

The spokesman added: "Over the next few years we will start to see reductions in costs. Our budget for administration will stay the same way for the next three years."