CAS responded to the Scottish Legal Aid Board’s Call for Views on proposed changes to the civil legal aid means assessment. 

Key points:

•  We have long been supportive of the introduction of personal allowances and using standardised allowances where appropriate to lessen the administrative burden on applicants, solicitors and SLAB and to reduce the time it takes between applying for legal assistance and having the final decision communicated. Generally, we therefore welcome the proposals to introduce a new standardised personal allowance which is automatically applied for the applicant, alongside additional premiums for applicants with disabilities and applicants who are carers to reflect higher household costs. We agree that this will likely remove some of the complexity of the means assessment processes and could benefit those on lower incomes which we support. 
  However, a number of questions and concerns remain.
• SLAB modelling shows that these changes will, at a population level, move more people into eligibility for civil legal aid which we welcome. We note, however, that the increase from 52% to 57% is relatively small and substantially below the around 70% of the population considered to have been eligible for civil legal aid in 2011. Advisers across our network continue to highlight a growing justice gap where people or households are unable to afford legal costs, including solicitor fees, but currently don’t qualify for legal aid and court fee exemptions. We believe further steps have to be taken to improve access to justice for those who would remain excluded from this fundamental right.
• The briefing states SLAB’s intention to allow specific further allowances on application only in very exceptional circumstances, as the standard personal allowance would apply automatically to all applicants. While we recognise the rationale behind this intention, we would caution against a too restrictive policy on what SLAB accepts as ‘exceptional circumstances’.
• We welcome that the introduction of a standardised personal allowance will likely lead to a lower total contribution required to be paid. Likewise, the suggested reduction of the rate in the initial contributory band from currently 33% to 25% is positive, as it will decrease contributions for people with lower disposable incomes. However, we are concerned about the proposal to move to a single, standard-length payment plan of 20 months. We would question whether contributions could be more efficiently recouped by sufficiently recognising people’s financial situation and changed circumstances where they arise, rather than by standardising the repayment period and leaving only limited flexibility.
• In order to avoid and mitigate materially inequitable outcomes, we would urge ongoing and improved monitoring of eligibility at a population level and with regard to particularly vulnerable and disadvantaged groups as well as enhanced engagement with groups and organisations representing rights-holder experiences of access to justice barriers, including to accessing legal aid.