GBA - Glasgow Bar Association

news & events

02 November 2009

K. McAskill Esq
Cabinet Secretary for Justice
The Scottish Parliament
EDINBURGH EH1

Dear Cabinet Secretary,

I write in response to your speech at the Legal Aid Conference on 9th October 2009. It had been my intention to write to you in relation to the Scottish Legal Aid Board's Annual Report 2008-9 in any event. Many of your comments at the Conference were pertinent to my observations in relation to the Report, in particular the continued increased costs of SLAB and the PDSO.

One of the main parts of your speech was about the lack of traineeships available to law graduates, something which you described as a "human tragedy". The lack of criminal trainees is something that Glasgow Bar Association has been complaining about for many years. We see the reason for this problem as primarily the lack of funding in criminal legal aid over the last two decades. The block fee systems also discourages taking on more staff and as the payments in real terms decrease year on year the trend is towards having less staff per firm, not more. There is also the fear of whether there is a sustainable future for private criminal legal aid firms if this trend continues.

As you know Glasgow Bar Association were vehemently opposed to the legal aid changes at the time of Summary Justice Reform. Whilst we acknowledged that the number of cases would decrease we did not believe that it was unreasonable for the summary budget to remain static given that there had not been any increase in the summary fixed fee in ten years. The estimated cut in the budget was around 6-7%. In reality if criminal advice and assistance is included the cut has been 8.4%. That has been on the basis of only ten months post-SJR.

Moreover the cost per case in solemn legal aid dropped 18.2% last year in an area that was already under-funded. If, as we are led to believe, the new system is to be "cost neutral" on the current fee structure then this is clearly unacceptable.

What is more galling is that the PDSO seem to be immune to the harsh realities of SJR. Their costs have risen yet again by 11% despite the fact their caseload dropped nearly 11%. That means that over the last 5 years alone there has been a 374% increase in costs with only a 34% increase in the number of cases. By SLAB's own calculations every single PDSO office is making a substantial loss. The staff costs increased 16% despite the fact the staff numbers were the same. This includes an increased pension of 49% on the previous year. Private solicitors must still fund their own pensions, holidays, and statutory pay out of their reduced income. The Part V solicitors' pension costs rose by a staggering 79% last year. This surely cannot be the best use of the public purse? You asked at the conference for us to identify where savings can be made. Taking the money out of the PDSO and putting it into the private sector may not only provide savings but also may allow firms to take on trainees. It will also provide the public with far better value per case.

Similarly SLAB's own operating costs did not reflect the cuts imposed on the solicitors. Despite a slight decrease of 0.2% from the previous year this hardly reflects the 16% decrease in applications and cases paid. Indeed over the last five years the applications have decreased 32% but administration costs have increased by 36%. Administration costs are now over 9% of the overall legal budget compared to 5.8% five years ago. Actual payments to solicitors have remained static over that period. Money must be taken out of administration and put back into those appearing at court before the situation deteriorates further. Quality assurance and SLAB taking over solemn grants will have the opposite effect.

Whilst one cannot ignore the financial climate the financial difficulties we face as criminal and civil legal aid solicitors were imposed upon us prior to the recession. The profession cannot absorb any further cuts without being severely affected. Indeed there are likely to be plenty of "human tragedies" amongst those already practising if the current trends continue. The Government must look to the costs of administration and the PDSO if it wishes to make further savings. If that can be done and more money can be directed to the coal face then there may be a future for not only our graduates but for the criminal justice system as a whole.

I would be grateful for your comments in relation to the above.

Yours faithfully,

David O'Hagan
President