« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Chapter 5: Planning Framework
The consultation stated:
The roles and responsibilities set out for the key parties (Scottish Executive, local authorities and a national co-ordinating body) in the planning and co-ordination of civil PFLA provide a basic planning infrastructure. This needs to be underpinned by flexible, responsive, proportionate and robust processes which would encourage effective joint working. These processes would include the introduction of strategic, proactive funding and matchfunding capacity in the centre through the national co-ordinating body. They would also require:
- A strategic vision and statement of national priorities to be developed by the Scottish Executive;
- Local plans to be drawn up by local authorities (or clusters of local authorities), in consultation with the voluntary sector, the legal profession and other stakeholders, with input from partnerships of providers and funding bodies and based on assessment of need for legal services;
- The investment of centrally held funds (either from the Scottish Executive or from the national co-ordinating body) to be subject to an agreed and approved planning process (as above) and to an overarching quality assurance system;
- In demonstrating achievement of Best Value, local authorities to have regard to guidance on the provision of civil PFLA developed by the national co-ordinating body in consultation with Audit Scotland, the Scottish Executive, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the voluntary sector and the legal profession;
- In the longer term, funding from a national co-ordinating body to be available to the full range of providers of civil PFLA (solicitors as well as non-legally qualified providers), in ways appropriate to the circumstances of the provider such as grant funding, contracts or direct employment.
5.1 The consultation asked:
Q6: should a national co-ordinating body have the ability to enter into matchfunding arrangements with other funders of PFLA?
Forty-three respondents (66%) addressed this question with 39 providing a clear response and a further 4 providing commentary only. Table 5 overleaf provides a summary of views.
Table 5: Summary of views on whether a national co-ordinating body should have the ability to enter into matchfunding arrangements with other funders of PFLA
| No. | % |
|---|
Yes | 33 | 85 |
|---|
No | 3 | 8 |
|---|
DK | 3 | 8 |
|---|
Total | 39 | 100 |
|---|
NB. Percentages may not total 100% exactly due to rounding
The vast majority (85%) of those who provided a view was in favour of a national co-ordinating body having the ability to enter into matchfunding arrangements with other funders of PFLA.
5.1.1 Views in Favour of Permitting Matchfunding
Arguments in favour of this proposal emerged mainly from those in the voluntary and local authority sectors and fell largely into 4 categories:
- Matchfunding could enable a greater flexibility in funding options ( LA)
- This arrangement could help to stabilise funding for, and build upon, advice services in the voluntary sector (Vol, LA)
- Matchfunding could maximise and sustain sources of other funding that exist in this domain (Vol, LA, Leg)
- There are examples of successful application of this approach elsewhere (Vol, Indiv)
One respondent highlighted successful English experience of matchfunding within Community Legal Services in terms of encouraging better funding of innovative PFLA projects at local level (Indiv). Another considered that matchfunding might ensure cover of services which may not otherwise have been funded by other grant funders (Vol).
5.1.2 Concerns Regarding Matchfunding
Whilst some respondents welcomed this proposal wholeheartedly, others expressed more of a cautious welcome, with some concerns also highlighted.
A few consultees warned that care should be taken to ensure that the matchfunding system did not become overly complex to administer ( LA, Leg). One stressed that it should be, " simple, non bureaucratic and not administratively cumbersome" (Leg). It was recommended that organisations should be made clear about exactly what their respective financial obligations were under a matchfunding arrangement (Leg).
Others were concerned that matchfunding should not replace existing streams of funding (Vol) and should not preclude instances whereby the national body was the sole funder of certain services ( LA, Leg, Vol).
A recurring view was that matchfunding should be set up over the longer rather than shorter term (Vol, LA) with clear exit strategies in place (Oth) to avoid problems when the match comes to an end ( LA, Leg).
Other concerns were that matchfunding might compromise the independence of advice which should characterise PFLA (Vol); and an emphasis that matchfunding should be restricted to the not-for-profit sector (Oth).
A few respondents felt that the consultation document did not provide enough detail for them to submit considered comment (Indiv, Leg). Others queried how the system would work in practice (Vol) and who the other matchfunders might be (Vol).
One firm opposing view was that a system of matchfunding would be very problematic to administer and was simply inappropriate in the context of delivering legal aid (Vol).
5.2 The consultation asked:
Q7a): What are your views on the proposed outline planning framework for civil PFLA?
In total, 37 respondents (57%) provided commentary with several others simply stating that their responses to the previous questions contained their views on the proposals. Four of the respondents who commented argued that more information would be required before they could consider the planning framework in any depth (Vol, Indiv, LA). Indeed, one summed up their view thus: " the devil will be in the detail" (Indiv).
5.2.1 Favourable Views on the Proposed Outline Planning Framework
Many advantages were associated with the proposed outline planning framework. A common theme was that the proposals appeared to involve a range of stakeholders in contributing to local plans (Vol, Leg). The framework had the benefit of harnessing both national and local priorities according to some, with both recognised as valuable aspects of the framework (Leg, LA, Vol).
Other benefits of the proposals were envisaged, including the promotion of a more consistent approach across different local authorities (Leg, LA); ensuring wider access to services (Vol); clearer definition of the role of local authorities ( LA); promotion of more transparent, open relationships between stakeholders ( LA); and the creation of a more effective interface between local authority and external advice provision ( LA).
The plans were seen as addressing current weaknesses in the civil advice system ( LA), taking a holistic view of individual needs (Oth) and building on what works currently (Leg).
5.2.2 Concerns Regarding the Proposed Outline Planning Framework
Whilst offering some cautious support to the proposals, many respondents also expressed various concerns.
One respondent urged that local decision making should not be stifled in order to meet national demands ( LA). Another warned against the Scottish Executive playing too central a role in developing the strategic vision as this could compromise the independence of the new framework (Indiv). Others were concerned that without a statutory duty, local plans may not be produced (Vol) or that local planning may involve, " too many cooks" ( LA).
Those representing specialist groups stressed that a consideration of the needs of their particular sector (eg disability, race equality) should be integral to the planning process (Vol).
Finally, one consultee considered that the proposals showed potential but needed to be enacted with rigour to be successful (Leg).
5.2.3 Opposition to the Proposed Outline Planning Framework
A small minority of 4 respondents expressed specific opposition to the proposals. The general view was that the plans may constitute reinventing the wheel and perhaps a new body was not really needed when the current players in the system could deliver the appropriate services without the creation of what they viewed as another costly layer of bureaucracy (Leg, LA, Indiv).
5.3 The consultation asked:
Q7b): How do you envisage the various elements of such a planning framework might work together to ensure better planning and co-ordination?
Overall, 16 responses (25%) contained fresh commentary of relevance to the consultation question, with a few further respondents simply referring to their previous responses.
Various ideas were submitted on how the different elements of the planning framework might be helped to work together effectively. A recurring theme was that lessons could be learned from current practice (good and bad), for example, from local authorities, in England and Wales, and from pilots (Vol, Leg). The use of existing successful networks for co-ordinating and planning was suggested ( LA, Oth), with others advocating building on the Community Planning model of joint working ( LA).
Others considered that new, formal arrangements for planning and co-ordination should be established such as formal joint working agreements ( LA), formal channels of communication (Oth, Vol), agreed action plans (Oth) and designating specific joint working tasks to individuals within the relevant organisations ( LA).
It was suggested that specific opportunities for networking be set up such as seminars, training ( LA) and regular face-to-face meetings (Oth). In this way, it was mooted that a gradual build up of trust and confidence between respective organisations would result (Oth, LA).
One respondent urged that information technology be utilised to facilitate the planning and co-ordination of functions between different parties (Oth). Further views were that strong leadership (Oth) and clear, explicit, hierarchical links between the Scottish Executive and the other relevant bodies would help to ensure effective planning and co-ordination (Vol).
5.4 Summary Points
- The vast majority (85%) of those who provided a view was in favour of a national co-ordinating body having the ability to enter into matchfunding arrangements with other funders of PFLA.
- Many advantages were associated with the proposed outline planning framework. Common themes were that the proposals appeared to involve a range of stakeholders in contributing to the local plans and that the framework appeared to have the benefit of harnessing both national and local priorities.
- A recurring theme was that in fitting the various elements of the planning framework together, lessons could be learned from local authorities, from experience in England and Wales and from pilots.
« Previous | Contents | Next »