header-logo header-logo

Call for national legal support fund

05 September 2013
Issue: 7574 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus
printer mail-detail

Solicitors to pay in dormant funds & City firms to sponsor major initiatives

Levies on payday loan companies and financial penalties on government contractors for faulty social security assessments could be used to fund legal advice centres, an influential think-tank has proposed.

The Low Commission, established by the Legal Action Group last October to develop a strategy for the future provision of social welfare law when the next government is formed in 2015, has collected the views of more than 230 individuals and organisations.

Its draft report estimates  that “there is about £400m per year available to fund advice and legal support services – mainly coming from local authorities, the Money Advice Service and the legal aid that remains for social welfare law”, and that a further £100m is needed each year to ensure basic provision.
It advocates the creation of a national advice and legal support fund of £50m per year for 10 years to fund advice and legal support work. Funds would be drawn from central government, with 90% of the money going to local authorities and the remainder for national initiatives.

To help finance this, and to promote good decision making, government contractors could be penalised on a “polluter pays” principle for decisions that are later overturned. The other £50m would come from statutory, voluntary and commercial bodies. The report suggests, for example, that the Financial Conduct Authority impose a levy on payday loan companies, while solicitors pay in any dormant funds relating to dissolved companies and unclaimed damages in collective actions, and City law firms sponsor national initiatives.
 

However, it says millions of pounds could be saved if public services bodies got decisions right in the first place, for example, 35% of the 340,000 welfare benefits appeals in 2011-2012, which cost £66m, were upheld.
Its other recommendations include a national legal helpline and more support for Mackenzie Friends. The Commission, chaired by Lord Colin Low, is asking for responses to its proposals by the end of this month, and will publish its final report in December.

Issue: 7574 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll