« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Annex 3: Summary of consultation questions
Part 1: Publicly Funded Legal Assistance on Civil Matters
Q1: Do you agree with the proposed consensual approach to developing better planning and co-ordination of advice services by local authorities, without any formal duty on local authorities in respect of the provision of PFLA services in their area?
Q2: What support activity do you believe would need to be provided to assist local authorities in developing their planning and co-ordination of PFLA at a local level? Who should provide this?
Q3: Should a national body with a planning and co-ordination responsibility for the delivery of civil PFLA be established in Scotland?
Q4: What are your views on the suggested functions for a national co-ordinating body for civil PFLA (national planning and co-ordination; national development and research; responsibility to ensure provision of services where necessary, including second tier services such as training and information)?
Q5: Should a national co-ordinating body be able to fund provision by non-legally qualified providers as well as solicitors and advocates?
Q6: Should a national co-ordinating body have the ability to enter into matchfunding arrangements with other funders of PFLA?
Q7(a): What are your views on the proposed outline planning framework for civil PFLA?
Q7(b): How do you envisage the various elements of such a planning framework might work together to ensure better planning and co-ordination
Q8: In relation to the suggested non-remuneration based methods:
(a) Do you believe that the suggested non-remuneration based methods to encourage and maintain civil legal aid provision should be pursued?
(b) How effective do you think that such methods would be?
(c) Do you have any alternative suggestions?
Q9: In relation to securing the provision of civil PFLA services, do you believe that there should be:
(a) Greater use of salaried or employed solicitors for civil PFLA?
(b) Contracting with private practitioners to provide legal aid services?
Q10: Should legally assisted parties who at the end of their case are able to meet the full cost be asked to pay enhanced rates for civil legal assistance?
Q11: Should SLAB be able to fund provision by non-legally qualified advisers as well as solicitors and advocates?
Q12: Should SLAB be able to administer an outlays fund that could be accessed by non-legally qualified providers?
Q13: Do you agree that an enhanced rate for solicitors undertaking A&A work which requires specialist skills, knowledge and experience should be introduced?
Q14: Should a system of extended and tapered financial eligibility be introduced for civil legal assistance?
Q15: Assuming that an extended and tapered scheme was affordable, what should be its main features?
Q16: What detailed changes to the clawback arrangements might desirably be made?
Q17: Do you agree that state benefits should be disregarded in the financial assessment for civil legal aid, as they are for A&A?
Q18: Do you agree that the Scottish Legal Aid Board should be able to:
(a) collect contributions over a longer period of time?
(b) make flexible arrangements for the repayment of contributions, including the use of instalments for contributions from capital?
Q19: Do you agree that the legally assisted person should be required to inform the Board of changes in their financial circumstances over the lifetime of their civil case?
Q20: Do you agree that the test of 'severe financial hardship' in section 19 of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 should be changed to one of 'financial hardship'?
Q21: Would any further relaxation of the terms of section 19 of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 be justified?
Q22: Should regulations be introduced to specify how the courts should determine the liability of the unsuccessful legally aided party (Section 18 of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act, 1986)?
Q23: In relation to a review of the number and types of proceedings or categories of cases under which ABWOR and civil legal aid are available:
(a) Should the number and types of proceedings or categories of case under which ABWOR and civil legal aid are available, be reviewed?
(b) If so, what general criteria or principles should be applied to determine what proceedings or categories of case might be included?
Q24: Would a provision allowing SLAB to fund individual cases which fell outside scope, where there were exceptional circumstances relating to the general importance of the case for public policy, be helpful?
Q25: How may publicly funded representation by non-lawyers best be taken account of when reconsidering the scope of ABWOR?
Part 2: Publicly Funded Legal Assistance On Criminal Matters
Q26: Should a national co-ordinating body also take on responsibility for the planning and co-ordination of the delivery of criminal PFLA?
Q27: Should there be a more general use of salaried solicitors through the PDSO for the provision of criminal PFLA, alongside private practice provision?
Q28: In relation to the suggested non-remuneration based methods:
(a) Do you believe that the suggested non-remuneration based methods to encourage and maintain provision should be pursued?
(b) Do you have any alternative suggestions?
Q29: Do you believe that SLAB should be given the flexibility of operation to allow it to pursue these methods?
Q30: Do you agree that SLAB should be allowed to employ flexible methods (within the context of its current role and functions) in relation to the secure the provision of solicitors' services for criminal legal assistance?
Q31: More specifically, do you agree that SLAB, should be able to:
(a) Make greater use of salaried or employed solicitors through the PDSO?
(b) Use contracting with private practitioners to provide legal aid services?
Q32: In relation to a contributions system for the full range of PFLA:
(a) Do you agree, in principle, that a contributory system should be developed for the full range of publicly funded criminal legal assistance?
(b) What would you anticipate the main practical difficulties in establishing and operating a contributory system might be?
Q33: Should any arrangements be put in place in respect of contributions paid by people later acquitted to be refunded to them?
Q34: In relation to the transfer of responsibility for granting criminal legal aid:
(a) Do you agree that the responsibility for granting criminal legal aid in solemn cases should transfer from the courts to SLAB?
(b) If not, would there be another way of improving the transparency, consistency and cost control of the solemn criminal legal aid system?
Q35: Do you agree that the Scottish Legal Aid Board should be given powers in solemn cases:
(a) to recover costs from applicants who have made false disclosure of their means, and
(b) to terminate publicly funded legal assistance where this is appropriate, as it currently can in summary cases?
Q36: In relation to specific financial eligibility criteria:
(a) Do you agree that specific financial eligibility criteria should be introduced for all criminal legal aid?
(b) What should such criteria be based on?
Q37: Do you agree that a requirement to report material changes in financial circumstances during the lifetime of a case, to allow a reassessment of eligibility, should be introduced for criminal legal aid?
Q38: Do you agree that publicly funded criminal legal assistance should be terminated if, upon reassessment of financial eligibility, the applicant is no longer eligible?
Q39: Should a single integrated system be developed for publicly funded legal assistance in summary criminal cases?
Q40: How should such a system take account of the proposals for summary criminal reform set out in the White Paper 'Smarter Justice, Safer Communities'?
« Previous | Contents | Next »