Legal aid has the user voice at its centre
The Review recommends the voice and interest of the user be at the centre of the legal aid system. Do you agree?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Unsure
How desirable are each of the following ways of embedding the user voice and experience into the design and delivery of a legal aid service, on a scale of 1 – 5 (1 being very undesirable and 5 being very desirable).
| 1. Direct engagement through enhanced approaches to quality assurance 1 Radio button: Not checked 1 | 1. Direct engagement through enhanced approaches to quality assurance 2 Radio button: Not checked 2 | 1. Direct engagement through enhanced approaches to quality assurance 3 Radio button: Not checked 3 | 1. Direct engagement through enhanced approaches to quality assurance 4 Radio button: Checked 4 | 1. Direct engagement through enhanced approaches to quality assurance 5 Radio button: Not checked 5 |
| 2. Indirect engagement through consumer panels 1 Radio button: Checked 1 | 2. Indirect engagement through consumer panels 2 Radio button: Not checked 2 | 2. Indirect engagement through consumer panels 3 Radio button: Not checked 3 | 2. Indirect engagement through consumer panels 4 Radio button: Not checked 4 | 2. Indirect engagement through consumer panels 5 Radio button: Not checked 5 |
| 3. Collaborative engagement by connectivity across the publicly funded legal assistance landscape. 1 Radio button: Checked 1 | 3. Collaborative engagement by connectivity across the publicly funded legal assistance landscape. 2 Radio button: Not checked 2 | 3. Collaborative engagement by connectivity across the publicly funded legal assistance landscape. 3 Radio button: Not checked 3 | 3. Collaborative engagement by connectivity across the publicly funded legal assistance landscape. 4 Radio button: Not checked 4 | 3. Collaborative engagement by connectivity across the publicly funded legal assistance landscape. 5 Radio button: Not checked 5 |
Partnership working and Community Planning Partnerships (CPPs) help provide local context to user needs. Would you support placing duties on a prescribed list of public sector organisations, to work together in order to help CPPs achieve their goals?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Ticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Unsure
Legal aid has flexibility to address and adapt to user need
The Scottish Government supports the recommendation in the Review that provision by publicly-funded private solicitors should continue. Do you consider that there are ways in which the mixed model can be strengthened?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Ticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Unsure
Are there specific areas of law, eg domestic violence or disability issues, that the current judicare funding arrangements are serving less well?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Unsure
Please specify which areas and give reasons for your answer.
All areas. The issue is with underfunding rather than the current arrangements
Are there specific areas of law that might benefit from a more targeted approach to funding solicitor services?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Ticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Unsure
Are there certain groups that when accessing legal aid might benefit from a more targeted approach to funding solicitor services?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Ticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Unsure
Do you support building additional flexibility into the delivery of legal aid?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Ticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Unsure
Legal aid as a public service
As currently structured and delivered, do you consider legal aid a public service?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Unsure
Are there changes that you consider would make legal aid function more as a public service?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Ticked
Unsure
Are there potential risks to looking at the delivery of legal aid as a public service?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Ticked
Unsure
The Change Agenda
Are there actions that could be taken by the Scottish Government to help maintain or strengthen the current scope of legal aid?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Ticked
Unsure
Are there any other aspects of the current scope of legal aid that you think should be reformed?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Ticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Unsure
Are there actions that should be taken by the Scottish Government to help support and strengthen the work of SLAB?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Unsure
Please give reasons for your choice.
I am very concerned about the proposal that decisions on policy be 'devolved' from the Cabinet Secretary to SLAB. This is incredibly undemocratic.
Improving access and targeted interventions
A more structured relationship between SLAB and legal aid providers could be facilitated by way of a formalised agreement. Do you support a Memorandum of Understanding between solicitor firms and the Scottish Legal Aid Board being a prerequisite for doing legal aided work?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Ticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Unsure
What risks might a Memorandum of Understanding system have in relation to the legal sector’s ability to respond to emerging legal need, if any?
What risks might a Memorandum of Understanding system have in relation to the legal sector’s ability to respond to emerging legal need, if any?
I am very worried that a Memorandum of Understanding is a mechanism to compel solicitors to take on work that they do not presently do as it is financially unsustainable. This is a cheap way to make solicitors carry the burden of gaps in provision rather than addressing the real problem which is decades of underfunding.
In principle, do you support a change whereby SLAB would have a standardised range of intervention powers, in statute, across all legal aid types?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Ticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Unsure
Should lay advisers be able to access funding through legal aid to provide advice?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Ticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Unsure
What are your views on solicitors providing publicly funded legal assistance being located within third sector organisations that have service users with civil legal issues e.g domestic violence, minority groups or disabled groups?
What are your views on solicitors providing publicly funded legal assistance being located within third sector organisations that have service users with civil legal issues e.g domestic violence, minority groups or disabled groups?
Unsure what is meant here
SLAB could directly employ lay advisers for tasks such as assisting with information and advice provision to aid early resolution, signposting people to information or services, or referring them to services that will meet their needs. Would you support SLAB being allowed to directly employ lay advisers for such purposes?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Ticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Unsure
Do you think there would be benefits to having a telephone triage service that provided basic advice and referral assistance?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Ticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Unsure
The Review supported a “channel-shift” in signposting, referrals, advice and information from face-to face and telephone to on-line, while ensuring that face-to-face remains for vulnerable groups or those who struggle to access digital technology. Do you agree that such a channel shift should be promoted?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Ticked
Unsure
Planned intervention could mean exclusive funding using grants for specific advice or geographical areas. Should grants and/or contracts facilitate exclusive funding arrangements to target a specific identified need?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Ticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Unsure
Should grants and/or contracts be able to cover all aid types?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Ticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Unsure
Simplicity and fairness
Do you agree that the judicare system should be simplified?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Unsure
Should SLAB have more flexibility in operating the system?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Ticked
Unsure
Flexibility and fairness can trade off against one another. With this in mind:
In which areas do you think it is most important to maintain consistency?
unsure
In which areas do you think it is most important to allow more flexibility?
a competitive operational free market is the most flexible system
Do you support a single eligibility assessment at the earliest point in the application process?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Unsure
Are there situations when the continuation of more complex financial calculations would be required?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Unsure
Please give reasons for your answer and identify the situations in which you think this would be necessary (if any).
exceptional or unusual financial situations should be considered on their own merits to avoid unfairness
Should there be more strictly defined financial thresholds for eligibility?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Ticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Unsure
Would you support the availability of funding to those with a common interest in legal proceedings, such as Fatal Accident Inquiries?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Ticked
Unsure
Do you agree that those who can afford to do so should pay a contribution?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Ticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Unsure
Would you support the implementation of contributions in criminal legal assistance for those who can afford to pay?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Ticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Unsure
The existing contributions regime is complex but highly personalised. Would you support a simplified, more transparent and more accessible contributions system, even if this might risk some of benefits of this personalisation?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Ticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Unsure
Please give reasons for your answer.
I do not support any system of contributions
There are inconsistencies in the operation of clawback. Would you support addressing this by removing discretion to create a more transparent system, even if this might risk some benefits of the flexibility this discretion allows?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Ticked
Unsure
Would you a support that there be a test on whether clawback should apply?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Ticked
Unsure
Do you consider the merits tests appropriate and transparent?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Unsure
Merits tests could be applied at defined stages during the lifetime of a grant of legal aid. For example before an appearance is made in civil court proceedings, or on receipt of summary complaint and any following appeal. In principle, do you support the application of a merits test at defined stages during the lifetime of a grant of legal aid?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Ticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Unsure
Please give reasons for your answer.
I think that adds a layer of complexity that is unnecessary
We are aware that in other jurisdictions, such as the Netherlands, applications are submitted under a high trust model and automatically granted, subject only to financial eligibility checks. What are your views on the current balance between a solicitor’s ability to grant advice and assistance and the need to seek prior approval from SLAB for funding in other aid types?
Do you think this balance should be shifted, and if so in what direction?
I would support a high trust model. Solicitors are subject to many checks and balances and generally perform well. It would help to simplify the system is greater trust is given to the solicitor.
In general, what controls do you think should be put in place to protect the Legal Aid Fund from inappropriate use?
In general, what controls do you think should be put in place to protect the Legal Aid Fund from inappropriate use?
I think the existing controls are sufficient
Would you support the introduction of any merits test on what is currently the advice and assistance scheme?
Would you support the introduction of any merits test on what is currently the advice and assistance scheme?
No
Enhanced Statutory Powers and Best Value
SLAB could have statutory powers to operate more strategically. Do you support there being statutory processes that allow SLAB to facilitate legal aid delivery in a more flexible and permissive way?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Ticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Unsure
Please give reasons for your answer.
I do not support giving more power to SLAB. Underfunding is the root of the current problems and giving more power to SLAB is just ridiculous. They are at the heart of the problem.
What checks or controls would you consider necessary if SLAB had statutory powers to operate more strategically?
What checks or controls would you consider necessary if SLAB had statutory powers to operate more strategically?
I do not think SLAB should have more power
Do you consider changes to the composition and structure of SLAB’s Board necessary to help support a more strategic role?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Ticked
Unsure
Do you support that SLAB should register and quality assure all those providing services paid by the Legal Aid Fund?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Ticked
Unsure
Please give reasons for your answer.
I have no difficulty with SLAB carrying out quality assurance but I am worried that this would duplicate existing arrangements eg SLCC. I don't have any particular view on which body is best placed to quality assure but they should not duplicate each other.
Do you agree with the Review recommendation that all quality assurance reviews and reports on both lawyers and third sector advice services be published?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Unsure
There are a number of approaches that could achieve greater surety and control over outlays. How desirable on a scale of 1 – 5 (1 being very undesirable and 5 being very desirable) do you find the idea of the statutory framework to give SLAB powers to:
| 1. fix a preferred supplier list and to set rates for commonly used experts. 1 Radio button: Not checked 1 | 1. fix a preferred supplier list and to set rates for commonly used experts. 2 Radio button: Not checked 2 | 1. fix a preferred supplier list and to set rates for commonly used experts. 3 Radio button: Not checked 3 | 1. fix a preferred supplier list and to set rates for commonly used experts. 4 Radio button: Not checked 4 | 1. fix a preferred supplier list and to set rates for commonly used experts. 5 Radio button: Checked 5 |
| 2. deal directly with the experts to arrange payment. 1 Radio button: Not checked 1 | 2. deal directly with the experts to arrange payment. 2 Radio button: Not checked 2 | 2. deal directly with the experts to arrange payment. 3 Radio button: Not checked 3 | 2. deal directly with the experts to arrange payment. 4 Radio button: Not checked 4 | 2. deal directly with the experts to arrange payment. 5 Radio button: Checked 5 |
| 3. make payment on the basis of a fixed tables of fees for experts, which must be agreed to when accepting instructions relating to a legal aid client. 1 Radio button: Not checked 1 | 3. make payment on the basis of a fixed tables of fees for experts, which must be agreed to when accepting instructions relating to a legal aid client. 2 Radio button: Not checked 2 | 3. make payment on the basis of a fixed tables of fees for experts, which must be agreed to when accepting instructions relating to a legal aid client. 3 Radio button: Not checked 3 | 3. make payment on the basis of a fixed tables of fees for experts, which must be agreed to when accepting instructions relating to a legal aid client. 4 Radio button: Not checked 4 | 3. make payment on the basis of a fixed tables of fees for experts, which must be agreed to when accepting instructions relating to a legal aid client. 5 Radio button: Checked 5 |
Are there types of expert reports and other reports which could be subject to more control than others?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Ticked
Unsure
About you
What is your name?
Name
Julia McPartlin
Are you responding as an individual or an organisation?
Please select one item
(Required)
Radio button:
Ticked
Individual
Radio button:
Unticked
Organisation