Discussion archive

Top Policy topic #852

Subject: "CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'" First topic | Last topic
shawn
                              

editorial director, rightsnet
Member since
28th Jul 2005

CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Wed 16-Apr-08 08:50 AM

From Third Sector ...

'Hull Citizens Advice Bureau is lobbying the city council in a last-ditch bid to prevent it from commissioning a rival community legal advice centre that could result in the charity's closure.

Hull City Council and the Legal Services Commission have almost completed joint plans to commission the new centre. The CAB has been told it has been unsuccessful in its bid to land the contract, which is expected to go instead to private company A4e.

If the plan goes ahead, the Liberal Democrat-led council will stop providing annual funding of £640,000 to the CAB. The charity said that up to 40 of its 55 jobs would be at risk if it were to lose the council funding. Staff, union members and supporters will march to the council offices tomorrow ahead of a crucial council meeting to discuss the situation ....'

  

Top      

Replies to this topic
RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', billmcc, 16th Apr 2008, #1
RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', nevip, 17th Apr 2008, #2
      RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', shawn, 17th Apr 2008, #3
           RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', keithven, 17th Apr 2008, #4
                RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', nevip, 17th Apr 2008, #5
                RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', past caring 1, 17th Apr 2008, #6
                     RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', ariadne2, 17th Apr 2008, #7
                     RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', creaky, 18th Apr 2008, #9
                          RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', past caring 1, 18th Apr 2008, #10
                          RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', creaky, 18th Apr 2008, #12
                          RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', Tony Bowman, 18th Apr 2008, #13
                               RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', creaky, 18th Apr 2008, #14
                                    RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', past caring 1, 18th Apr 2008, #15
                                         RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', creaky, 18th Apr 2008, #16
                     RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', Tony Bowman, 18th Apr 2008, #8
                          RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', past caring 1, 18th Apr 2008, #11
                               RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', billmcc, 18th Apr 2008, #17
                                    RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', Neil Bateman, 20th Apr 2008, #18
                                         RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', keithven, 21st Apr 2008, #19
                                              RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', PeteD, 22nd Apr 2008, #20
                                                   RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', Neil Bateman, 22nd Apr 2008, #21
                                                        RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', pclc, 22nd Apr 2008, #22
                                                             RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', past caring 1, 23rd Apr 2008, #23
                                                                  RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', PeteD, 23rd Apr 2008, #24
                                                                       RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', wai fong, 25th Apr 2008, #25
                                                                            RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', jj, 28th Apr 2008, #26
                                                                                 RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', wai fong, 29th Apr 2008, #27
                                                                                      RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', wai fong, 15th May 2008, #28
                                                                                           RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', Steve, 27th Jun 2008, #29
                                                                                                RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', jj, 30th Jun 2008, #30
                                                                                                RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', Steve, 11th Jul 2008, #39
                                                                                                RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', Neil Bateman, 30th Jun 2008, #31
                                                                                                     RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', pclc, 02nd Jul 2008, #32
                                                                                                          RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', Gareth Morgan, 02nd Jul 2008, #33
                                                                                                               RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', Robbo, 02nd Jul 2008, #34
                                                                                                                    RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', stevegale, 02nd Jul 2008, #35
                                                                                                                         RE: CLACs and .... plaudits for rightsnet!, jj, 04th Jul 2008, #36
                                                                                                                         RE: CLACs and .... plaudits for rightsnet!, Tony Bowman, 04th Jul 2008, #37
                                                                                                                              RE: CLACs and .... plaudits for rightsnet!, jj, 04th Jul 2008, #38
                                                                                                                         RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', wai fong, 21st Jul 2008, #40
                                                                                                                              RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', wai fong, 21st Jul 2008, #41
                                                                                                                                   RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', wai fong, 16th Sep 2008, #42
                                                                                                                                        RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', wai fong, 14th Oct 2008, #43
                                                                                                                                             RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', Tony Bowman, 14th Oct 2008, #44
                                                                                                                                                  RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', wai fong, 12th Jan 2009, #45
                                                                                                                                                       RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', shawn, 13th Jan 2009, #46
                                                                                                                                                            RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB', billmcc, 13th Jan 2009, #47

billmcc
                              

Manager, Dumfries Welfare Rights
Member since
19th Jan 2004

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Wed 16-Apr-08 11:37 PM

European competive tendering at its best lets see it all over the UK.

  

Top      

nevip
                              

welfare rights adviser, sefton metropolitan borough council, liverpool.
Member since
22nd Jan 2004

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Thu 17-Apr-08 11:57 AM

A4e was originally set up to help people back to work and works closely with jobcentre plus. It may have its roots in Yorkshire but it is an international company whose founder is an entrepreneur. That it should be given a LSC contract in the first place thus putting it into competition with a more locally, grass roots based organization like the CAB, with its tradition of advice services and its voluntary sector ethos (and thus putting that organization’s service in jeopardy), is an absolute disgrace.

I'm not too familiar with the legislation for competetive tendering. I glanced at it once several years ago. But there must be some flexibility in the awarding criteria other than lowest bid.

  

Top      

shawn
                              

editorial director, rightsnet
Member since
28th Jul 2005

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Thu 17-Apr-08 12:17 PM

of course, A4E already got the Leicester CLAC ...

... from rightsnet policy news ... Leicester Law Centre to close: A4e win contract to provide CLAC in Leicester

  

Top      

keithven
                              

welfare benefits caseworker, Leicester Community Legal Advice Centre
Member since
08th Apr 2008

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Thu 17-Apr-08 12:54 PM

In fact, it looks as though Leicester Law Centre may survive in some form as at least some of the funding referred to in the story Shawn links to above appears to have come through. It is unlikely, however, to be what we have always understood a Law Centre to be.

Leicester CLAC is operated by A4E in association with Howell's Solicitors, who provide the actual advice. I believe the arrangement is intended to be similar in Hull, but I might be wrong about that. If it worked like the Leicester bid, the cost was fixed, and the decision was based on who LSC and the local authority thought had the best business plan.

Due to the wonders of TUPE I now work for the CLAC, so I have no further comment.



  

Top      

nevip
                              

welfare rights adviser, sefton metropolitan borough council, liverpool.
Member since
22nd Jan 2004

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Thu 17-Apr-08 02:22 PM

And there’s this: -

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1042106_jobseekers_treated_like_cattle

  

Top      

past caring 1
                              

Welfare Benefits Casework Supervisor, Cambridge House Law Centre, London SE5
Member since
09th Oct 2007

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Thu 17-Apr-08 02:29 PM

"Due to the wonders of TUPE I now work for the CLAC, so I have no further comment."

How long does TUPE protect your wages from being decreased to the £14k per annum that Howell's pay their staff for the generic/software generated advice they're known for?

  

Top      

ariadne2
                              

Welfare lawyer and social policy collator, Basingstoke CAB
Member since
13th Mar 2007

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Thu 17-Apr-08 06:55 PM

I thought A4E was part of the National Lottery scheme for local arts organisations a few years back (when I was grants officer of a local music society)? I also thought it stood for Arts for Everybody.

If I was of a suspicious nature I would think either that someone has been doing some very good empire building or that a passing-off action is called for.

Or that there is a funny notion of what the arts are.

  

Top      

creaky
                              

housing caseworker, Howells Sheffield
Member since
18th Apr 2008

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Fri 18-Apr-08 01:27 PM

As a housing caseworker who works for Howells (who provide the advice for A4E)

I can happily confirm that it is a myth that we use computer generated advice.

We use the same resources as any other housing specialist:
Defending possession proceedings, the homeless code of guidance and Arden, Shelter Legal, specialist consultancy services, training from Garden Court and Pump court etc etc etc

Someone might be getting confused with the OPERATOR service (which takes calls and assesses for eligibility before putting through to specialists) The operator service is not provided by Howells (or A4e) and gives some limited information to ineligible clients (which I doubt they would call it advice or or specialist casework.

As someone who worked for 14 years in a local authority and 4 years in a large NFP charity I share some concerns about the privatisation of public services. But I don't think they're helped by misinformation or starry eyed optimism about different modes of service delivery.







  

Top      

past caring 1
                              

Welfare Benefits Casework Supervisor, Cambridge House Law Centre, London SE5
Member since
09th Oct 2007

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Fri 18-Apr-08 01:59 PM

"I can happily confirm that it is a myth that we use computer generated advice."

Well, "computer generated" may have been over-egging the pudding, but I stand by "generic", at least in respect of the WB advice I've seen. Don't know if you'd know in relation to WB work, but I wonder if you can tell us:

Does the firm seek to obtain medical evidence for clients in respect of incapacity and disability benefits appeals?

Do its employees actually represent clients funded by legal Help at social security tribunals? - ie we all know that LH doesn't pay for such representation, but the vast majority of not-for-profit advice providers find some way of representing appellants when the case demands - does Howell's?

ps - date of registration noted. You weren't ordered on here, were you? (just kidding!)

  

Top      

creaky
                              

housing caseworker, Howells Sheffield
Member since
18th Apr 2008

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Fri 18-Apr-08 02:26 PM

Fri 18-Apr-08 02:27 PM by creaky

Hehe no I wasnt ordered here

A welfare benefit specialist showed me the thread, I'm sure she can answer questions about their advice (assuming she wants to put herself up for that)
We've had these kind of myths perpetuated about the housing team too by a solicitor in London - he published an article with a whole bunch of innaccuracies about the service provided here.

I'm not starry eyed - there are limitations to the service provided by a national telephone and post based casework service - which is why we identify clients who need face to face representation pronto (ie for help at court as an obvious housing example) or local expertise.
We refer on those cases. When we can.

Way too often we can't get clients into advice services around the country, either they dont exist or they have limited opening hours, innaccessible phone lines, high staff sickness levels etc etc etc

If the CLACs make for more accessible services than is currently the case I'll be happy. Ideally without 'em leading to the loss of existing NFP services .... but in this harsh contracting world we know that happens (and I noticed on Leicester Law Centres website that they got their contract in preference to their local CAB)

Having now worked in all three sectors, I'm not as convinced that the quality of private companies is necessarily that different to that of public or voluntary sector as I once was ....

Without publically criticising a specific NFP organisation... I remember meeting someone who worked for one as a housing caseworker, he earned 10k less than I earned (at the time) was classed as a trainee, and hadnt received any training :O

Cait




  

Top      

Tony Bowman
                              

Welfare Rights Advisor, Reading Community Welfare Rights Unit
Member since
25th Nov 2004

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Fri 18-Apr-08 02:27 PM

Fri 18-Apr-08 02:34 PM by shawn

"... The operator service is not provided by Howells (or A4e) and gives some limited information to ineligible clients (which I doubt they would call it advice or or specialist casework."


I don't know if the unified contract is the same, but under the old contract we had to provide the same assistance, free of charge, to non-eligible clients as we do for eligible clients.

We still do that. If the CLAC's, Legal Practices, etc did the same, would they still be in the same, expanding position. It sounds from this quote that you only work with eligible clients. Where does everyone else go since they're not getting advice or specialist casework? Will they go to the other WR services and law centres thereby reducing our eligible output and increasing the chances of closure?

Sorry to sound so ****** about this, but the big law centres are not the only ones having an unhappy time with the new contracts

Maybe I should spend less time on Rightsnet...

  

Top      

creaky
                              

housing caseworker, Howells Sheffield
Member since
18th Apr 2008

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Fri 18-Apr-08 02:33 PM

Yep we only work with eligible clients

We used to be able to give up to 30 minutes free advice (and refer to somewhere) but that was under the previous contract (and when I worked for a different supplier)

This contract only lets us speak to eligible clients (that's nothing to do with A4e or Howells - its the LSC contract rules - and applies to any of the NFP contractors working on CLA too)

However, that's the national service, I wouldnt have the foggiest about how CLACs and Legal practices will/do work.

Cait

PS I better get back to hitting targets and working for my clients now eh

  

Top      

past caring 1
                              

Welfare Benefits Casework Supervisor, Cambridge House Law Centre, London SE5
Member since
09th Oct 2007

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Fri 18-Apr-08 03:43 PM

Fri 18-Apr-08 08:46 PM by shawn

creaky/Cait....a few things

1) Nothing personal in my scepticism about firms like Howell's (do put the apostrophe in, please, it's a subject very close to my heart in this instance ) - I'm sure that you personally do a good job - many of your colleagues, too.

2) And you're right, there's certainly **** caseworkers and bad advice in the voluntary sector - I've had to pick up the pieces often enough to know.

3) My point about representation was somewhat different to Tony's....

I've been doing this job for ten years now. When I started you could send a client along to a DLA or Incap tribunal armed with your submission and the decent medical evidence you'd obtained and pretty much guarantee a result. Experience outside London might be different, but I think all that began to change about 4-5 years ago. Today, I feel I need to represent in person at even the "strongest" of cases in order to ensure my client gets a fair result. And bear in mind I'm talking about straightforward stuff here - DLA and the PCA - which nine times out of ten is all about evidence and interpretation and involves no technical legal argument at all.

In short, and in my view, most of the time claimants need to be represented in person to ensure justice.

Of course, I can't bill for representation under Legal Help - and I couldn't under the old contract either. But the organisation I worked for then - and the one I work for now - ensured that clients who needed representation got it, either by dipping into their own reserves or by using council funding to pay for the work that the LSC wouldn't.

The point about Howell's (the firm, that is, not the individual employees) and others of their ilk now entering the "market" is that there is no public service ethos. It is entirely profit driven (which is why they pay their staff such **** wages) and if they can't bill for it, they won't do it. A priori, claimants simply aren't going to be represented in person whatever the circumstances and simply aren't going to get the help they need.



  

Top      

creaky
                              

housing caseworker, Howells Sheffield
Member since
18th Apr 2008

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Fri 18-Apr-08 05:50 PM

Fri 18-Apr-08 08:46 PM by shawn

"The point about Howell's (the firm, that is, not the individual employees) and others of their ilk now entering the "market" is that there is no public service ethos. It is entirely profit driven (which is why they pay their staff such **** wages) and if they can't bill for it, they won't do it. A priori, claimants simply aren't going to be represented in person whatever the circumstances and simply aren't going to get the help they need. "

Can't figure out how to do quotes....

Howell's is a long standing legal aid provider - I genuinely doubt it's entirely profit driven. (not saying profit isn't partly a motivation) But from what I gather it's not a latecomer to social welfare and public service (it was a collective for a long time and only works on legal aid cases - so no representing landlords etc)

I do understand your concerns but these days the difference between public, private and voluntary sector is much greyer.
Most councils and most voluntary sector organisations are getting extremely target focussed and hidebound by regulatory bodies - the days of being able to be flexible and responsive in them is long gone

Granted the pay is lower than the best paying voluntary sector employers (but not as low as quoted - and does include room for negotiation dependent on experience, plus bonuses, plus actual opportunities for promotion) the conditions, working hours, annual leave, and pension are much of a muchness.... and the ethos (here at least) is very much about trying to get the best outcome for the client (within the limitations that exist)

You're possibly right about representation .... but, I suspect that observation covers a *lot* of NFP services too. Agencies only do the work they're paid for - and the conditions attached to LSC funding does mean there is various work that won't get done if that's the main source of funding.


Cait

  

Top      

Tony Bowman
                              

Welfare Rights Advisor, Reading Community Welfare Rights Unit
Member since
25th Nov 2004

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Fri 18-Apr-08 01:08 PM

"How long does TUPE protect your wages from being decreased to the £14k per annum that Howell's pay their staff for the generic/software generated advice they're known for?"

Which is of course why they never state a salary range in thier job adverts!

I once phoned a legal firm, advertising a WR job at just over £11k, to ask if it was a typo? I knew it wasn't, I just wanted to laugh down the phone when they told me...

Why do people accept these types of jobs at salary levels well below the average - thereby perpetuating low salary levels - which do seem to be falling outside of London...?

  

Top      

past caring 1
                              

Welfare Benefits Casework Supervisor, Cambridge House Law Centre, London SE5
Member since
09th Oct 2007

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Fri 18-Apr-08 02:00 PM

They're falling in London as well Tony, believe me.

  

Top      

billmcc
                              

Manager, Dumfries Welfare Rights
Member since
19th Jan 2004

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Fri 18-Apr-08 06:42 PM

It's not uncommon for solicitors in this area to fully exhaust the legal aid / advice and assistance budget on benefit cases then at the very last second drop the bombshell on the client?

"By the way I am unable to represent you at appeal as I would not get paid for this, if you want me to go with you it will cost £300+ or you have the option at the last second to go to your local advice centre who can represent you for free"

Make no mistake solicitors are self employed businesses money and profit comes first.

But having said that many CAB will now do anything for money preventing other local agencies getting a look in.

Tendering is good, secures best value for the public pound and should be transparent, bring it on, the days of handing public money out year on year to unaccountable agecncies are long gone, I hope.

  

Top      

Neil Bateman
                              

Welfare rights consultant, www.neilbateman.co.uk
Member since
24th Jan 2004

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Sun 20-Apr-08 08:11 AM

Going back to the point about A4E securing the CLAC contracts.

A4E have major contracts with DWP around welfare to work. Surely this poses an appearance of, if not an actual, conflict of interest when providing independent benefits advice in a CLAC?

I wonder what the professional and regulatory bodies views might be.

  

Top      

keithven
                              

welfare benefits caseworker, Leicester Community Legal Advice Centre
Member since
08th Apr 2008

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Mon 21-Apr-08 07:59 AM

Leicester CLAC will actually do more ineligible work than Leicester Law Centre had done in the last couple of years. The Law Centre could not afford the time to do cases that weren't eligible, and we'd cut right back on our representation in those cases that were eligible. Our local authority funding was for general help only and was not to cover casework. The CLAC contract allows for 18% of benefits cases to be ineligible, and we as workers are certainly being given the impression we can do whichever tribunals we choose.

There are very few things about the switch to the CLAC that I see as being an improvement, most of it seems to me to be change for change's sake, but this is one area where there might be real benefits for claimants.

I think the conflict of interest issue was raised during the bid process, but nothing came of it. I suspect that the answer from the regulators would that since the advice is provided by Howells and A4E only deal with the admin side, that there isn't a conflict - don't think A4E have much, if any, presence in Leicester anyway. At worst it is no more of a conflict than LA welfare rights services taking on HB sections, and that doesn't seem to give rise to many problems.

  

Top      

PeteD
                              

Welfare Department Manager, Stephensons Solicitors, Leigh, Lancs
Member since
23rd Jan 2004

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Tue 22-Apr-08 12:34 PM

Sorry, but I find the thread here to be moving the discussion along very unhelpfully!!

I myself have grave concerns about the CLACs contracts...not so much due to the award going to private sector (but I would say that having taken the King's shilling many moons ago), rather that the notion of CLACs - whilst a very useful (and saleable)idea..holism...joined up advice etc... - will eventually be used as a means of effectively cutting out niche areas of the advice sector.

We are fortunate here in this practice to have provided a type of CLAC for well over 10 years, having contracts across the Social Welfare categories. We have done so (I think) rather successfully for our clients. We were amongst the first private sector firms to undertake Welfare Benefits advice twenty-odd years ago and soon moved into housing community care money advice, employment etc...we saw this as a natutral progression...and not simply out of a profit-making motive...we saw that you can't get results for clients unless you deal with ALL their issues...and rather than referring them all over the place it is easier, more efficient and plain better to deal in one place. It seems that (for all the talk of honourable motive vs dishonourable intention) that most of the larger advice agencies have bought into CLS funding, and many smaller too. If it's so bad why is everyone doing it??

However, back to the point...the toings and froings over issues of conflict, independence, motivation and service in this thread are not very helpful in my view...

I am certainly aware of Private firms that I would not refer social welfare advice work to (even though they purport to do it). I am equally aware of NFP agencies who basically have a two tier system for eligible and non- eligible clients, and who do not properly identify holistic issues...and even when they do, they will often (unwisely) attempt to resolve those related issues when they have no real expertise to do so...in some cases causing significant overall detriment to the client.

There are numerous concerns about the state of the advice sector in general...dwindling funding streams, economies of scale, a move to alternative dispute/preventative advice services which (again in my own view) are often "cosying up" in many ways to the public bodies that fund, or are in partnership with them.

We have Local Authority Welfare rights moving to income maximisation teams which can in some cases be no more than a recovery arm for social services charges and we have some in the private sector providing no more than lip service in cherry picking cases...

from the thread above, despite attempts to "outscore" each other we have tribunal representation by discretion it would seem in all sectors........

As far as I'm concerned in this local area (and I will bet in many others) the agencies in both NFP and Private sectors are populated largely by staff who have worked in both sectors (often the same organisation more than once)and who move from one sector to another as demand necessitates...are they bad when in Private Practice and good when NFP...or vice versa? I don't buy that.

All of which (i'm afraid) is a manifestation of the public and governmental distaste for advice as an asset to this country...an arm of the welfare state....surely we don't need to add to our own woes!!

THERE IS SIMPLY GOOD ADVICE AND BAD ADVICE, GOOD DELIVERY AND BAD DELIVERY, GOOD RESULTS AND BAD RESULTS...can we get on with making a positive solution and work towards an holistic approach for all...and stop trying to divide the advice sector?

Please note these are my personal views.

  

Top      

Neil Bateman
                              

Welfare rights consultant, www.neilbateman.co.uk
Member since
24th Jan 2004

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Tue 22-Apr-08 03:15 PM

...and there's yet more depressing news about the impact of Legal Aid cuts on the advice sector in this week's Times Law Supplement: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/columnists/article3754531.ece?&EMC-Bltn=TR14W8

The mainstream advice sector burns while the LSC fiddles with CLACs?

  

Top      

pclc
                              

legal advice worker, plumstead law centre
Member since
16th Feb 2006

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Tue 22-Apr-08 08:41 PM

Although CLACS have been talked up by the LSC as joined up provision, the reality is that the LSC do not care who provides the service provided it is done within budget - they have said as much. They would positively welcome non legal firms from moving into this area, given their general anti lawyer bias ( which enables them to present themselves as the champion of the poor client sold down the river by greedy couldn't care less lawyers ).
CLACS tie into fixed fees nicely, as an organisation is more likely to make a profit from fixed fees with a "factory" approach - i.e churn through lots of quick cases ( don't forget some of the key performance indicators - average cost per case needs to be only 80% of the fixed fee and a positive result needed in only 40% of cases ).
This will result in deskilling case workers and driving down their pay, whilst overpaid and underqualified managers preside over the achieving of targets and pat themselves on the back at delivering Tesco style legal services.
Sound familiar? I have a friend who has worked as a housing officer for a local authority for many years. He has vast knowledge and is good at his job. His authority and freedom to manage his job has quickly been eroded by the creation of an ALMO. He now has to respond to 300 computer prompts per week, many of which involve chasing up tenants for arrears of less than £50. Behind him in his office sit various managers, all younger and less skilled than him, who have somehow blagged their jobs, demanding he hit his targets or face disciplinary action and drag him away from his job to produce silly reports and statistics to support their jobs ( i.e achieving targets ).
Or this for example - the manager of our income support section has staff on long term sick leave due to stress. When they are unable to staff the telephones adequately he has to pull staff off the processing teams in order to achieve telephone answering targets - which results in more people calling them as their benefit claims are not being processed!
New Labour's obsession with targets is distorting provision across all public services - health, education, police. Expect the LSC to trumpet achieving more " acts of assistance" - but this, like all the other stats and jargon of a bureaucracy gone mad, will be completely meaningless.
And if I hear one more LSC apparatchik or minister bang on about better value for the taxpayer, I will self combust. Hell, I am a lawyer and a taxpayer! The LSC's online reporting system won an "award" and then crashed the next day. It is still not working and will cost £2.7 m to fix - that's an awful lot of advice provision up the spout. And from a government that has squandered billions of taxpayers money on flogging off undervalued assets to private contactors, the failed PP1 for transport, tax credits....
Although I respect the views of the previous contributor who complained that the thread was going off topic, you really do have to put CLACS in the bigger picture....

  

Top      

past caring 1
                              

Welfare Benefits Casework Supervisor, Cambridge House Law Centre, London SE5
Member since
09th Oct 2007

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Wed 23-Apr-08 09:56 AM

Wed 23-Apr-08 09:58 AM by past caring 1

"Although I respect the views of the previous contributor who complained that the thread was going off topic, you really do have to put CLACS in the bigger picture...."

Indeed. Moreover, to look at the threat to Hull CAB, or any of the other advice organisation that have closed or which are threatened with closure in isolation, is to actively set up a barrier to understanding what is going on; an almost Groundhog Day approach to politics, if you will.

I've an example of my own....

Back in 2000 I landed a job as a Sure Start advice worker in the country's first Sure Start programme - on the Aylesbury Estate in Southwark where Blair gave his "no more forgotten communities" speech.

The programme was set up with 7 year funding that reduced year-on-year to nil after the final year - I suppose if the intent was to "break the cycle of poverty", even at that stage the policy wonks realised that, at some point, New Labour had better be able to say they'd broken it. Government ministers trumpeted the success of the programme then and they trumpet the success of the programme now; it's still a common occurence for one of these interchangeable, lizard-souled wretches to appear on Newsnight or the Today programme and announce that Sure Start has "helped x number of hundreds of thousands of families in this country out of poverty".

Don't misunderstand me, the work carried out by Sure Start programmes on the ground often is, and was, very good.

But the government simply doesn't have the data to justify its assertions - because from the outset, it has never asked Sure Start programmes to report to the Sure Start Unit on actual results. What programmes were required to report is the number of families seen, the ethnic breakdown of those families, the number of those families which are lone-parent and the number of those families where none of the adults are in employment. And that's it.

The government is interested solely in being able to bandy impressive figures around, safe in the knowledge that the facile level of political debate in this country will mean they are rarely, if ever, challenged. In terms of the changes to the LSC contract, they are on even safer ground, because everybody already hates lawyers. And because the real losers, those who require expert legal advice to defend their rights against the powerful but have no means to pay, are, by and large, the most marginalised and disenfranchised members of a society which is increasingly politically disinterested. Quite simply, the government knows there is no political price it will have to pay for this.

Come the first anniversary of the new LSC contract in October, you can be sure they'll be trumpeting the success of the changes, telling us how x many more hundreds of thousands of the population have been able to access and be assisted by Legal Aid because of their changes. And they will, of course, be right. But they'll be right in exactly the same way that a brewery manager who tells his landlords they can now charge only 50p for a pint of bitter (but water it down as much as you like) will be right when he reports to head office that his pubs have doubled the number of pints of bitter sold.

  

Top      

PeteD
                              

Welfare Department Manager, Stephensons Solicitors, Leigh, Lancs
Member since
23rd Jan 2004

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Wed 23-Apr-08 02:20 PM

Now that's more like it!! I can certainly accept many, many of the comments emerging here!...even though I stand by my earlier posting in terms of holism being the best approach...what i took some umbrage over was the general divisiveness of the stereotypical "private v public provider" debate ...

in my own experience (having also worked in both sectors for roughly an equal time) there is much to be learned from both sides' approach, and - as I said - (and stand by) there is good and bad provision in both....

for example, evidence stands that the NFP sector (pre fixed fee) spent (on average) roughly 4 times more hrs with a debt client that we do here...that may be due to the extra service provided by NfP providers, of course, but in my own humble experience (first hand) that is/was not the case...another reason may be that the NfP strives to provide holism and tags the additional time dealing with non-presenting issues (ie non debt) onto that contract's hours (maybe because they don't have the other contracts, but not always), whereas the "savvy" (read profit-seeking, if you will) "Private" bod will open LH matters for each presenting problem and get paid more as a result in what seems less time for each case...another reason may be (as with one NfP agency I know) that the first part of the debt case is dealt with by (usually) less-trained generalist workers who only pass the matter to the "experts" when all correspondence is back from the creditor refusing to accept an offer bases on financial Statement (a waste of time if you ask me)...

equally there are many truths in what has been said above, in terms of measuring efficiency to the nth degree (the last-but-one example above I think confirms this, as does the content of previous postings in terms of how we are all bean-counted now)...but whatever sector you are from, surely the thing that matters is that we work together for the benefit of clients, and don't divide into camps as was my unfortunate experience 15-20 yrs ago, when informal (and even formal)policy decisions by all sorts of NfP agencies I worked for/with precluded proper referrals to legal specialists simply out of dogma, and prejudice... often - as I have stated previously -to the real detriment of clients!

  

Top      

wai fong
                              

Policy & Voice Development Officer, LASA
Member since
20th Jun 2007

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Fri 25-Apr-08 02:02 PM

Some good news - Cornwall have decided to withdraw from joint commissioning of a CLAN see

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/cgi-bin/publisher/display.cgi?1159-3108-475+policy

  

Top      

jj
                              

welfare rights adviser, saltley & nechells law centre birmingham
Member since
21st Jan 2004

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Mon 28-Apr-08 09:25 PM

very excellent.

"It is our view that we need time to build such a network and encourage providers into a new dynamic way of delivering advice."

rather good...

i wouldn't dare to say nothing about the hoisting of the jolly roger after the classic 'mike' thread...lol!

  

Top      

wai fong
                              

Policy & Voice Development Officer, LASA
Member since
20th Jun 2007

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Tue 29-Apr-08 02:29 PM

An article in the Times about Hull CLAC

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article3819104.ece

  

Top      

wai fong
                              

Policy & Voice Development Officer, LASA
Member since
20th Jun 2007

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Thu 15-May-08 12:42 PM

Crispin Passmore head of the Community Legal Service at the LSC argues that joint tenders with local authorities are the future for social welfare law services.

http://www.legalactiongroupnews.blogspot.com/

  

Top      

Steve
                              

Welfare Rights Officer, Welfare Rights Service, Hull. HU4 6DL
Member since
23rd Jan 2004

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Fri 27-Jun-08 01:07 PM

It is good to have so much interest in what is going on in Hull unfortunately a lot of the comment, here and elsewhere, is misinformed or uninformed. Worse still, much of it is provided by people who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo even though they know that it is fundamentally flawed.

The changes to the way that advice services will be organised in Hull have been in planning for over 2 years. This hasn't been dictated by the Legal Services Commission who only entered the poartnership after the work on reviewing advice provision had already begun. The changes have not been driven by a council that wants to reduce service provision but by one that accepts the value of advice services and wants to develop them and improve access. Many other councils could learn from this approach.

I'm not sure that it is productive to take issue with too many of the points of concern here, but I'll make an exception in relation to the Neil Bateman point on independence. The council officers who have been involved in this commissioning process don't need any lectures on indepoendence. It is hardly a new concept. The CLAc contract is more robust in this respect than any agreemement that has existed in the past. The contract is for independent advice provision. A4e may have other contracts, as may voluntary sector providers, but they are completely separate. The fact that Neil Bateman has often defended the ability of local authority based welfare rights organisations to provide independent advice (and correctly so) when the risk here is much greater, goes to show that any old argumemnt will do when the main purpose is just to criticise.

The future for advice services in Hull is promising and it is so because some people had the determination to put the interests of clients above the needs of any particular supplier. Other councils can shy away from this if they want..

On a more conciliatory note, if anyone would like to have a talk about what is actually going on in Hull and/or visit the new centre when it is up and running then give us a call.

01482 574788

  

Top      

jj
                              

welfare rights adviser, saltley & nechells law centre birmingham
Member since
21st Jan 2004

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Mon 30-Jun-08 02:14 PM

"The future for advice services in Hull is promising and it is so because some people had the determination to put the interests of clients above the needs of any particular supplier. Other councils can shy away from this if they want.."

i think you're writing yourselves a heroic script here, steve, whilst doing a disservice to the many highly committed and dedicated workers in the voluntary sector over many years, who pretty much wrote the book on putting client's interests first.

'supplier' is a contracting term, btw, severely limited in terms of denoting what many voluntary organisations are in actuality, and it's this inability to see beyond its own limiting terminology that is part of the problem with the statutory sector generally...there's a pretty huge and wide-ranging problem, certainly deserving of further analysis and discussion...

i prefer Cornwall's grasp on reality, and wisdom in (democratic) decision-making. i could say their courage in saying no to the LSC...but of course, it might not be that at all...

just my take...nobody, but nobody, has all the answers.

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/Cornwall_CLAN_Statement_04_08.doc

https://web5.hullcc.gov.uk/akshull/images/att7102.doc

  

Top      

Steve
                              

Welfare Rights Officer, Welfare Rights Service, Hull. HU4 6DL
Member since
23rd Jan 2004

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Fri 11-Jul-08 02:37 PM

You're the one who made the hero connection JJ. I would never be that immodest.

By the way. I've read that book, many years ago of course. Some elements of the voluntary sector have moved on since then and now understand concepts like commissioning and contracting and aren't afraid of them for weird philosophical reasons.

I'm interested in the concept of democracy though. We are hoping to adopt it in the north one day. Oh hang on. I am being told that this was actually an election issue in Hull. I'll leave you to look at the local election results.that followed.

  

Top      

Neil Bateman
                              

Welfare rights consultant, www.neilbateman.co.uk
Member since
24th Jan 2004

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Mon 30-Jun-08 03:16 PM

Others have responded well to the conflicts of interest point and it was quite proper to ask about this - it sounds like funders rightly also asked, otherwise it would not have been addressed. One ought to be able to make such a point on Rightsnet without being accused of dubious practices.

There is a distinction between how a LA WR service manages conflict of interest (eg repping in HB appeals) and how far a private company allows one part of the company to challenge the economic interests of the company by challenging another part of the company.

LAs as public bodies have greater potential flexibility around such matters because of the overriding need for them to "do the right thing" rather than to have to make a profit in order to survive.



  

Top      

pclc
                              

legal advice worker, plumstead law centre
Member since
16th Feb 2006

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Wed 02-Jul-08 07:32 AM

I think it is important to remember that the discussion about CLACS and One Stop Shops is not so much about quality of services as a reorganisation of services. This tends to get lost. According to Crispin Passmore at the LSC, existing advice services are not delivering services that clients want.
Well if this is the case why are there not thousands of empty waiting rooms across the UK, rather than ones bursting with desperate, downtrodden and angry clients trying to deal with mad bureaucracies?
Crispin Passmore's main argument for defending CLACS ( in some cases his only argument ) is again the one about client's having to see multiple organisations to deal with multiple problems. Despite the fact that many organisations already have more than one contract in different areas of law, in my experience clients are happy to see different organisations provided they will get an appointment and a quality service.
Existing CLACS do not have contracts in all areas of social welfare, eg immigration, community care, mental heath - so clients will still have to be referred. Also in our area there are no other employment or immigration advisors for miles, thanks to firms already pulling out of legal aid - advice deserts in urban areas. What policy has created this and shouldn't people be held to account for it? We are already a One Stop Shop in certain areas of law as there are no other providers.
If you believed the pronouncements of the LSC and some LA's ( as in the previous post ) you would be forgiven for thinking that there are loads of lousy organisations out there muddling through - but we, for example, have passed all our compliance audits and got a 2 on peer review and the only organisations left standing after years of scrutiny are the good ones.
You really do have to ask what is going on when a peer 1 reviewed organisation like Leicester Law Centre is swept aside for an unproven CLAC to be set up.
And with regards to workers seeking to protect their jobs, whats wrong with that, when they believe that they provide a quality and much needed service?

  

Top      

Gareth Morgan
                              

Managing Director, Ferret Information Systems, Cardiff
Member since
20th Feb 2004

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Wed 02-Jul-08 09:35 AM

I remember, vaguely, some research by, I think, Elaine Kempson & Penny Otley in the late 70s which found that people had no idea about the 'ownership', funding or independence of advice centres and just looked for somewhere that could offer a service. This was a blow to people who were arguing vociferously at the time that people wanted 'independent' centres and wouldn't go to LA or government run places.

I think the issues are very different now and I've been banging on about some of them for ages. (Cassandra of Ferret?)

I believe that this government started off with the best of intentions and the real belief that advice was important. In fact, because it was so important, it was something that the government should take responsibility for.

That led to the expansionist phase with funding becoming available and the usual tussle within departments for who was going to control the money. Understandably perhaps, that victory went to the 'legal' arm of government which has caused, in my opinion, one major problem; the belief that advice is solely about legal issues.

We then have the unsurprising discovery that there is a Parkinson's law for advice services, not just "demand expands to fill the advice available." but the demand always outstrips the advice available. In fact the more advice services there are the more, and longer, queues there are as well.

So government hasn't solved the problems of the citizen; in fact by increasing the rate of change in civil society, institutions and rules they've increased the real need for advice.

Then we reach the stage of efficiency savings or cuts.

This brings in the organisational and management planners who look at how to give advice more efficiently which leads to the more limited pot seeing a substantial portion being used on things other than advice giving; planning, reorganising, tendering, quality control etc.

The unedifying spectacle of sharp end advice givers squabbling and competing for funding. Following money for other purposes in the hope of diverting some of it for advice, bending and twisting the bids to try and get within the scope of the funders. Living year to year with almost all of the management effort devoted to chasing money. I've been a CAB trustee for many years so I speak with bitter experience here.

... and now...

we have a single funder in practice, in many areas, who are organising the giving of advice, at least partially, for their administrative convenience. They're picking the areas of operation so that existing, natural community boundary based, organisations have to merge, form consortia or expand unwillingly in order to become monopoly suppliers that are easy to supervise. We have advice givers who are told what to advise on, when to do it, where to do it and how to do it.

When we are told that our bureaux are not meeting standards, we worry a lot about our service. When we're told that it's because we are spending too much time giving advice, not enough time recording activities or on management then I worry about the priorities of the service. To be told that we should cut advice hours and spend more time on our internal administration is not my idea of our purpose. Nor is giving priority access to advisers to people referred by funders under SLAs.

It also makes us less able to compete with the pure commercial sector who can be much more flexible about the use they make of staff, the speed of training, the level of expertise and the 'quality of service'.

A lot of the advice sector grew out of people in the 60s in the rights movement taking their folding tables and chairs to street corners to help people.

They might not have had soundproof interview rooms, awareness training or quality marks and we probably couldn't give as good a service as some people can get now, if they can reach an adviser, but it was focussed on people and it wasn't constrained by the rules of the funders because there weren't any.

Of course, people weren't dependant on the work to pay the bills and mortgages and I wouldn't try to suggest that we ought to return to that model, but there are some values that we should try to keep. At the moment there seems to be more noise about who wins the bids rather than whether the model of advice is good or bad.

The LSC aren't trying to provide bad advice but they don't work from the perspective of advisers and they're working to their budget. There's been a bit of a Pastor Martin Niemöller process over the past few years as the independence and operation of the advice sector has been nibbled away and we're faced with a monolithic service controlled from Whitehall.

If that happens does it really matter who staffs the offices?

  

Top      

Robbo
                              

Welfare Rights Officer, Stockport Advice
Member since
22nd Jan 2004

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Wed 02-Jul-08 10:58 AM

I've typed it in to google, so you don't have to :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller

  

Top      

stevegale
                              

Co-ordinator, Disability Information Service (Torbay)
Member since
03rd Feb 2004

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Wed 02-Jul-08 06:47 PM

Note to Whitehall: the need for advice is rapidly expanding because of the failure-led demand generated by the incompetent management of public services.

This is known as a "vicious circle":

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/vicious-circle.html

This is free advice, so there's need to bring in a firm of management consultants at a cost of £5 million to find out the blindingly obvious.

  

Top      

jj
                              

welfare rights adviser, saltley & nechells law centre birmingham
Member since
21st Jan 2004

RE: CLACs and .... plaudits for rightsnet!
Fri 04-Jul-08 11:11 AM

for benefit of non-subscribers - see page 28
http://www.pm.gov.uk/files/pdf/psr.pdf

interesting document indicating some positive changes in approach, eg drawing back from micro-management and control, (creativity killers!) and more straightforward language. good to see good practices in places like canada and finland cited as a change from USA...

ah, but what does it all mean, really...? : )

  

Top      

Tony Bowman
                              

Welfare Rights Advisor, Reading Community Welfare Rights Unit
Member since
25th Nov 2004

RE: CLACs and .... plaudits for rightsnet!
Fri 04-Jul-08 12:58 PM

I'm keeping my comments to myself! Especially as I've submitted yet another stage 2 complaint to the TCO today becuase they have, typically, competely ignored previous (and polite) correspondence!

  

Top      

jj
                              

welfare rights adviser, saltley & nechells law centre birmingham
Member since
21st Jan 2004

RE: CLACs and .... plaudits for rightsnet!
Fri 04-Jul-08 01:22 PM

there's a coincidence...!!! : )

  

Top      

wai fong
                              

Policy & Voice Development Officer, LASA
Member since
20th Jun 2007

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Mon 21-Jul-08 12:15 PM

More than 10,000 people in Hull have pledged their support to prevent the closure of their local Citizens Advice bureau after it lost a huge chunk of its funding.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/jul/20/consumeraffairs.law

  

Top      

wai fong
                              

Policy & Voice Development Officer, LASA
Member since
20th Jun 2007

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Mon 21-Jul-08 01:00 PM

The company that controversially won preferred bidder of choice for the Hull Community Legal Advice Centre (CLAC) has pulled out of an education and training contract for eight Kent prisons because of anticipated financial losses.

http://www.lag.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=92576

  

Top      

wai fong
                              

Policy & Voice Development Officer, LASA
Member since
20th Jun 2007

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Tue 16-Sep-08 02:49 PM

Joint Procurement of Legal Advice Services - Gloucestershire CLAN

In January 2008, seven Councils in Gloucestershire published a feasibility study for jointly commissioning advice and infrastructure services. It was subsequently decided to progress with the procurement of advice services and to defer a decision concerning infrastructure provision to enable further discussions to take place.

The consultation began on 8 September 2008 and ends 8 December 2008.

http://www.stroud.gov.uk/legal_advice_contract.asp

  

Top      

wai fong
                              

Policy & Voice Development Officer, LASA
Member since
20th Jun 2007

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Tue 14-Oct-08 10:53 AM

PEOPLE needing help for a range of problems will get greater access to services from next week when a new legal advice centre opens in Hull.

The opening of the profit-making Community Legal Advice Centre has been controversial as it has put a question mark over the future of the Citizens Advice Bureau CAB), which has been in the city since 1939.

An article in the Yorkshire Post about Hull CLAC

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/localnews/Legal-advice-boost-for-strugglers.4584939.jp

  

Top      

Tony Bowman
                              

Welfare Rights Advisor, Reading Community Welfare Rights Unit
Member since
25th Nov 2004

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Tue 14-Oct-08 11:33 AM

Thanks for this update. Two thoughts for debate:

1) CABx can't have the monopoly just becuase they are CABx. Now, I have no idea how Hull's CAB works, but the use of the year is suggestive of sentimentalism. Not all CABx may be seen to represent the best value for money, and sentamentalism is not a reason for spending £700k a year of CT payers money;

2) I think the LSC are kidding themselves if they think that the clients will get value for money. They might, but with demanding targets and under-paid advice workers (I asked for an application pack for Howells recently and they resolutely refused to disclose the salary range) I can't see that people of Hull will get the best quality of advice. Time will tell I suppose...

  

Top      

wai fong
                              

Policy & Voice Development Officer, LASA
Member since
20th Jun 2007

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Mon 12-Jan-09 01:39 PM

The Conservatives are today tabling a Commons motion calling for a suspension of the tendering process while the economy is in recession.

see the Telegraph article

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/4218464/Debt-queries-soar-at-Citizens-Advice-Bureaus.html

  

Top      

shawn
                              

editorial director, rightsnet
Member since
28th Jul 2005

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Tue 13-Jan-09 11:11 AM

here's the early day motion -

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=37420&SESSION=899

That this House recognises the vital contribution of citizens advice bureaux in providing advice on debt to those in need during the recession; notes that personal debt is now the single biggest problem dealt with by bureaux; further notes that there has been a 51 per cent. increase compared to the previous year in cases involving mortgage or loan arrears, a 69 per cent. increase in redundancy cases and a 22 per cent. increase in bankruptcy cases dealt with by bureaux; is concerned that the way in which the Legal Services Commission is commissioning Community Legal Advice Centres and Networks may undermine the citizens advice bureaux network; notes the Government's review of the funding and provision of civil legal advice; urges the consideration of a public interest test in the future commissioning process, as recommended by Citizens Advice; and believes that in the current economic downturn, and pending the outcome of its review, the Government should suspend the roll-out of Community Legal Advice Centres and Networks to ensure that citizens advice bureaux can maintain their services at a time when they are needed most.

  

Top      

billmcc
                              

Manager, Dumfries Welfare Rights
Member since
19th Jan 2004

RE: CLACs and .... 'Private sector threat to Hull CAB'
Tue 13-Jan-09 07:20 PM

Wonder how many of the nine signing it are ex-cab advisers?

  

Top      

Top Policy topic #852First topic | Last topic