CIVIL BID ROUNDS FOR 2010 CONTRACTS: A CONSULTATION

Response of the FLBA

FLBA RESPONSE TO THE

CIVIL BID ROUNDS FOR 2010 CONTRACTS: A CONSULTATION

Introduction

1. This consultation is primarily concerned with the arrangements for contracts between the LSC and front-line service providers to replace the current arrangements when they expire in Spring 2010.

2. The Family Law Bar Association ('FLBA') represents the interests of specialist family barristers nationally and has 2306 members.

3. This response answers the questions in the consultation paper that the FLBA considers it can make a contribution to based on the experience and expertise of its membership.

4. We will address the LSC's assessment that the issue of the 2010 contract specification will not have a significant impact on the Bar (see paragraph 5.3 Impact Assessment) below.

5. In this response the FLBA have been anxious to ensure that these proposals:

(a) provide genuine and effective access to high quality publicly funded legal services for those consumers who need them; and

(b) facilitate, where required, arrangements for consumers to access high quality services from the independent Bar where there is a need for specialist legal advice or advocacy.

6. We welcome any steps proposed to ensure standards of service to clients are maintained and work towards securing easier access to face to face advice for clients (paragraph 3.2) however we are very concerned that the proposals made by the LSC have resulted in the disruption of many existing services and that the LSC seem intent on proceeding on their stated course without properly considering the consequences of their actions to date and/or failing to properly monitor and/or review the consequences of the changes brought in to date. By way of example this consultation is being responded to prior to any report on the operation of stage 1 fees. It is frankly hollow for the LSC to state 'In achieving these aims [as set out in paragraph 3.2 of maintaining standards and securing easier access to face to face advice for clients] we need to balance the need to ensure that the many excellent existing services are not disrupted, whilst allowing competition to improve services in those procurement areas where it exists.'(emphasis added)

7. Over the last 6 ¡V 9 months we have been informed of many advice 'deserts' in differing areas that appear to be a direct consequence of the introduction of Phase 1. This does not appear to being properly monitored by the LSC. By way of recent example, in Rugby, Warwickshire we are informed there are now no solicitors who undertake publicly funded family work.

8. It is the LSC who are seeking to bring about these changes without properly analysing the impact of what has occurred to date. The repetition of the stated aims in the absence of proper review or recognition of what is happening on the ground is a very risky course to undertake, when the consequences for the most vulnerable in our society, often women and children at risk of abuse, are so serious. It is the experience of those who operate in the area of publicly funded family law that there has been a dramatic decrease in the number of providers willing to undertake such work and the loss of expertise of those who do this work can't be readily replaced 'at the drop of a hat'.

General Comments on Consultation Document

9. The Summary: Analysis and Evidence document attached to the Impact Assessment sets out, in the box marked "benefits", the following objective: "the process will act as an enabler for the implementation of further fixed fee schemes and delivery transformation, which are anticipated to deliver financial benefits." (emphasis added). It would be alarming if the LSC were proposing to roll-out contracts calculated to include only fixed fee schemes where alternatives to such schemes are still under consideration.

10. The document goes on to state (paragraph 2.15) that: "We intend to meet with the LSC's Provider Diversity Reference Group to discuss the proposals in more detail". It is a surprise that the document describes at paragraph 5.3 that: "We do not anticipate that the new specification for 2010 contracts will have a significant impact on the bar…" Any alteration to the availability of work and funding in publicly funded work has a direct impact on the bar and a greater impact on those who are principally reliant on publicly funded work, statistically, women, those of a BME background or of junior call.

11. The LSC have a statutory duty to undertake Equality Impact Assessments. As set out in paragraph 3.21, they need to make sure that their policies are developed in 'in full recognition of the diverse needs, circumstances and concerns of people who will be affected by them'.

12. The overall aim of the proposals is greatly to reduce the number of providers to a core group of no fewer than five contracts in each area. The procurement areas equate broadly with Local Authority boundaries. These contracts will require the provider to undertake both public and private work with a set minimum number of new cases per annum in each area of work (new matter starts).

13. The stated objective is to eliminate the high number of practices which undertake only a very small proportion of the work: paragraph 5.32 in the Analysis and Evidence section of the Impact Assessment ('IA') sets out that 28% of providers deliver only 1% of legal aid. These figures need much more detailed analysis. If over a quarter of providers who currently meet the criteria for obtaining a contract are to be refused in the next round for not being "effective or sustainable (financially or in terms of quality and access)" per paragraph 5.32 IA, the basis for this assertion must be clearly set out. Perversely, the LSC cite anecdotal evidence of clients struggling to find a provider to justify this dramatic reduction (paragraph 5.32 IA). The risk of inadvertently creating a legal services vacuum is both predictable and avoidable but would be a tragic loss for a significant number of service providers and clients.

14. At paragraph 5.7 IA the LSC ventures that these providers will fail to obtain a contract in the new round unless they "increase this work to a moderate amount, give up legal aid work or join together in consortia". Whether these providers are high end family firms with predominantly private clients or high street firms in which the small but essential family department is subsidised by the other partners, the decision to undertake legal aid work will have been based on a sense of public duty. If faced with the choice of a mandatory and substantial increase in new certificates, the virtual impossibility of a merger or to give up legal aid work, the only viable outcome will be the latter. The LSC's invitation to over a quarter of current providers to contemplate giving up legal aid work is breathtakingly short-sighted.

15. The corollary of this is that fewer firms will be general practices: family departments will accumulate sole practitioners and then merge to cope with the financial risk introduced by the most recent changes to the manner in which solicitors are remunerated. This trend is already being observed in practice. One of the stated objectives in the consultation paper (Consultation document paragraph 3.6) is to address the needs of the 43% to 56% of clients with problems crossing legal boundaries; e.g. in need of family, housing and criminal advice. These clients will fail to find firms providing more than one area of practice if the current selection of genuinely generalist small providers is eliminated. Access to justice will inevitably be prejudiced.

16. There is often, in practice, a clear division between firms which undertake predominantly public care work and firms which undertake divorce and private children work and there can be a more subtle distinction in the skills of the practitioners involved. In some areas, those specialist skills have led to solicitors becoming highly specialised sole practitioners undertaking only care proceedings. The proposal to make it mandatory to undertake all areas of work, including divorce, will deliver a fatal blow to these practices and is entirely incompatible with the aim of delivering excellence.

17. It is of concern that there appears to be no evidence or any analysis of the impact of what is proposed by the consultation paper on BME providers or clients. By way of example:

(1) What consideration or analysis has been given to the impact on such providers or clients of limiting the number of providers in a procurement area or limiting bids to Integrated Services A?

(2) What consideration or analysis has been given to the impact on such providers or clients of the removal of the 28% of providers given in paragraph 5.32 IA?

(3) What consideration of analysis has been given to the impact on such providers or clients of the effect on organisations based in London who are responsible for the employment of 50% of minority ethnic practising certificate holders?

18. It is noted in paragraph 3.34 that in a small number of geographical areas contracts may run for less than three years to enable a trial of civil best value tendering prior to contracts potentially being let through price competition from 2013. What analysis has been, or is being, undertaken of the effect on provision in that area of limiting the time period for such contracts?

19. The proposal in paragraph 4.3 to have service combinations must not be allowed to proceed irrespective of the provider's ability to properly provide such services. One of the dangers of Integrated Services A for family work is that the level of expertise required to cover all the areas will simply not be economic to provide to the standard. Family law has become increasingly complex in terms of the following matters:

(a) The increase in the applicable statutory provisions.

(b) Pre application procedures and practices.

(c) Post application procedures and practices.

(d) The complexity of the evidence, in particular medical evidence.

(e) The frequency with which international elements have to be considered.

20. There should be sufficient flexibility in the contract terms regarding the minimum service combination to ensure that the local requirements and the provider's ability to properly provide such services can be taken into account.

21. In the section entitled Levels of Service to be delivered under the sub heading Family and low volume categories at paragraph 4.55 it is unclear what the term 'employed advocate' means and what the LSC rationale behind such a mandatory requirement is. Is it proposed that this mandatory requirement means that there must be a person employed specifically to undertake only advocacy or is it that there must be the capacity within the firm to undertake advocacy?

22. In paragraph 5.6 to 5.8 of the Consultation document, the minimum number of providers limit is plainly identified as the ideal figure, even if it is not set as the maximum. Five providers per procurement area is an alarming figure for the starting point in the LSC procurement exercise irrespective of the optimum number of solicitors per care case. It is, in our view, plainly not adequate to meet the needs of the population.

23. Clients who may be hindered by disability, limited emotional or financial resources, or intimidation should not have to travel miles to find advice; clients with children will find it difficult to travel significant distances for legal appointments. Clients who are young persons may also face difficulties in accessing such limited provision. This figure should have been consulted upon fully. It is our view that the number needs to be significantly increased. The LSC should make it a priority for clients to find a solicitor on their local high street rather than face a journey across their county to approach one of the five remaining firms adjacent to the regional care centre. In the Research Review: Child Care proceedings under the Children Act 1989 undertaken by Julia Brophy (University of Oxford) May 2006 (DCA Research Review 5/06) the profile of parents in care proceedings were as follows: Hunt et al. (1999)

„« 84% of parents were dependent on income support

„« 61% of cases contained a parent who was abused as a child

„« 58% of children were not full siblings of an 'index child'

„« 25% of cases parents cared for a child with special educational needs

„« 22% of parents had a learning disability

„« 27% of parents had a physical disability

It is not apparent that any of these features in the profile of parents in care proceedings has been considered in the oft stated mantra that 'In family law…we anticipate that the journey time on public transport to a provider will be less than 45 minutes for the vast majority of clients' (paragraph 5.42 consultation document). At its most basic many clients simply do not have the available funds to pay for the public transport, even if it is subsequently re-imbursed.

24. The consultation paper seems entirely focussed towards the needs of adult clients and does not address how services for child clients can be readily accessed by them. No consideration appears to have been taken of existing provision and its capabilities of delivering legal advice and representation to children and young people on a national basis, for example providers like the National Youth Advocacy Service ('NYAS') (see paragraphs 29 - 35 below). The delivery of service to this vulnerable group must not be eroded and what is described as a 'rational' allocation of budgets must not exclude the provision of services on a national basis when this is widely acknowledged to be an effective method of delivery for this vulnerable group of clients. It is vital that children are adequately represented and given equality of arms through appropriate specialist advice in any proceedings in which they are involved.

25. We are not convinced that basing the 'procurement areas' around local authority boundaries is sensible or helpful. It would surely be possible for the LSC to match the service procurement with the incidence of current new starts geographically; that is to say, the services should be made available in a manner which matches the current demand. We do not believe that matching the service procurement with the Local Authority area will facilitate the delivery of "services … locally" in geographically wide Local Authority areas.

26. We do not believe that the LSC has really understood or reflected the difficulties, or potential difficulties, surrounding 'conflicts of interest' (paragraph. 5.6 Consultation Paper). Not only may there be conflicts of interest within a case (such as, for example, in public law proceedings when both parents are potential perpetrators, and each blames, or may blame, the other), which will of course require separate representation, but there is a real issue concerning conflicts of interest as between separate cases. That is to say, lawyers representing a party in one set of public or private law proceedings may find themselves professionally unable to accept instructions to represent a potential party in separate proceedings where the lawyer has information from the first set of proceedings which is damaging or potentially damaging to the potential client in the other. This arises not uncommonly in our experience. It arises particularly where different branches of the same family face separate sets of proceedings concerning their children.

27. We have received much evidence in the last 12 months of firms closing, and/or of experienced practitioners ceasing to undertake family work; advice 'deserts' have emerged. The proposals set out here are likely only to exacerbate this problem.

28. We are opposed to the apparent plans in the consultation paper to limit family providers to work only within the procurement areas. This risks losing existing experienced providers who service a niche market with the consequence that a significant section of those clients who benefit from such provision will be adversely affected. In paragraph 5.43 of the Consultation Paper it is stated '..family law providers will not be set a proportion of work to be delivered to clients from those areas. This is in recognition of the fact that there are likely to be a variety of reasons informing a client's choice of advice provider. This approach also ensures that organisation with experience in advising particular client groups remain accessible to client groups across England and Wales.'

29. It is critical that organisations such as the National Youth Advocacy Service ('NYAS') are able to continue to operate. NYAS is a valuable and unique resource for children, complementing the service offered by CAFCASS, when CAFCASS is unable to take on the work, cannot reach a conclusion, or has come to the end of the road in its work with the family. Under the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, children are entitled to effective and timely representation. Quite apart from the rights and welfare of the child, to do away with the skills and expertise of NYAS would be extremely short-sighted, and would inevitably lead to even greater public expenditure. The LSC and the Ministry of Justice must recognise that NYAS has an excellent record of resolving the most intractable private law disputes, saving money in legal public funding of children and parents, and court and judicial time.

30. NYAS offers a specialist, countrywide service to vulnerable children who are trapped in the most difficult and prolonged legal disputes about residence and contact. These cases often end up in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. The issues at stake are the child's right to have a relationship with both of his parents, and the parent's right to have a relationship with his child. A judge is bound, by the common law, statute and the international conventions, not to dismiss the claim of an otherwise deserving parent without trying every effective resource to restore the relationship. The unique service NYAS provides is a lifeline to the child, his parents, and to the judge who must decide their future.

31. It is not surprising that these children are often found by the experts and by the courts to be suffering significant emotional harm, but, due to the lack of local authority resources, they usually do not receive any assistance from social services. NYAS is a last resort for these children. The court will invite NYAS to act when CAFCASS cannot act, or where the CAFCASS officer feels s/he has nothing further to offer as a resolution to the conflict.

32. NYAS is very cost-effective. It is difficult to conceive how such levels of expertise could be made available to children at a lower cost, and we are driven to the conclusion that, if NYAS can no longer act, they will simply not be available at all. In a typical NYAS case there will have been a complete breakdown in contact between the children and their parent, usually their father, and the parents will have been litigating for two or three years. Many cases continue for 5 or 6 years. These cases, often described as cases of parental alignment/alienation, pose great difficulty for the judge. The child has the right "to know and be cared for" by his parents (UNCRC, Article 7). The parent (usually the father) was a good parent and loves his child. He too has a right to family life with his child, both under the common law and under Article 8 of the ECHR. A CAFCASS reporting officer will have been involved, and may have written four or five reports. Frequently a child psychologist or psychiatrist (often publicly funded) has been asked to report, or a specialist contact centre (also publicly funded) has been instructed to assess the prospects of re-starting contact. NYAS can and does resolve these cases, either by getting contact to work, or by informing the court that, after a concerted effort, contact cannot work and the case should be resolved by a change of residence, or dismissed.

33. When NYAS is instructed, their expert caseworkers do not see their function as merely further assessment and reporting, but facilitating contact. Their work entails a thorough knowledge of the case papers, building a rapport with the child and the parents, accompanying the child to contact, observing handovers, and supervising the contact sessions. This work is intensive and skilled, and requires patience, firmness and diplomacy. It is also time consuming. But a successful outcome after years of bitter litigation will not only end the case, it will be life-changing for the child and his family. To dispense with the expertise of the NYAS caseworkers would be short-sighted in the extreme. Quite apart from the human cost, the judge cannot and will not terminate a parent's contact unless every reasonable effort has been made to restore it. Without NYAS, the litigation will drag on, at increased cost to the Legal Services Commission and to the court service.

34. There are many court and family reporters ('CFRs') working in CAFCASS who are able to take on the role of private law guardian. There are undoubtedly many who would like the opportunity to develop their skills and facilitate contact as the NYAS caseworkers do. However, the current workload of most CFRs is such that they would not permitted to give sufficient time to the individual case. The intensive and sustained casework which is routinely undertaken by NYAS is currently not feasible for the CAFCASS officer, and would require a major shift in the managerial culture and working methods of CAFCASS. Because the NYAS method of contact facilitation is not the usual approach of CAFCASS, many CFRs will also lack the skills and experience to do this work, and would require further training.

35. In case after case, the intervention and support of the NYAS caseworker has been of enormous assistance to the child, the parents and the court. When considering the relatively modest cost of the NYAS solicitor and caseworker, the Legal Services Commission should also consider the costs which have been saved in hundreds of cases, of which the following are examples:

Re H (National Youth Advocacy Service) [2007]1 FLR 1028

Per Wall LJ

"[10] NYAS does not take cases willy-nilly. It only takes those cases in which it can make a proper contribution."

Re D (Intractable contact Dispute Publicity)[2004] EWHC 72

Per Munby J

" [51] Intractable contact disputes are one of the 'prime categories' for separate representation of the children… In this situation the court can with great advantage make use of organisations such as The National Youth Advocacy service."

A v A (Shared Residence) [2004] EWHC 142 (Fam) [2004] 1 FLR, [2004] 3 FCR 201

Per Wall LJ

"[24] (4) It demonstrates the value and importance of the children having their own separate representation in certain cases… the work done by NYAS was invaluable, first in restoring contact between C and her father and then in achieving a shared care arrangements. It was a paradigm of what can be achieved by skilled and energetic Social Work intervention by the children's Guardian."

"[131] I cannot leave without expressing my gratitude and admiration for the work done by NYAS.""

[132] This case demonstrates what can be achieved by intelligent and purposeful social work intervention. The courts cannot expect in every case a service of the quality given to it by NYAS in this case. Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) reporting officers in any event has a much more limited role…there is no doubt that the excellent service by NYAS in this case was crucial to its successful determination."

RE B (a child) [2006] EWCA Civ 716

Per Wall LJ

"[20] I think it likely that, had I been sitting at 1st instance…I would have involved NYAS. That is… partly because of my own experience of NYAS, and because of their ability to adopt a sensible and hands-on approach to intractable problems."

Re S (uncooperative mother) [2004] EWCA Civ 597, [2004] 2 FLR 710

Per Thorpe LJ

"[25] We all recognise the extent to which the CAFCASS service has been outstretched in recent years and how it has struggled to maintain its primary service to the court, namely…investigating and reporting. This case calls for something different. It requires the resource to work with the family to bring about the implementation of difficult orders. Accordingly, it seems to me that it would be appropriate for NYAS to be appointed."

Re C (a child) [2005] EWCA Civ 30

Per Wall LJ

"[39] This is a case in which separate representation for R by NYAS is appropriate. I reach that conclusion for three main reasons....

[40] …the CAFCASS officer has reached the limit of what he can achieve with R, and that further intervention by CAFCASS may be counterproductive.

[41 …what R plainly needs is skilled social work intervention to act as the voice which listens to R … and which can mediate between R and his father.

[42] … NYAS will be in an excellent position to identify and obtain…expert advice."

If Legal Services Commission and Ministry of Justice budgets are the only consideration, then the cost of a NYAS intervention is far outweighed by the cost it can save. If the welfare of the child is to count at all, then this proposal will demolish at a stroke one of the most valuable supports for children and families in the family justice system which is clearly not in the public interest.

Consultation Questions

36. Q 1. Are there any areas of family work other than child abduction that should be procured separately?

There is concern that services for children and young people may need to be procured as a separate area of family work, or at least there should be sufficient flexibility within the procurement process to recognise that the provision of advice and assistance to children and young people requires specialist skills with a distinct approach to how the service is delivered. For example, with children and young people, taking into account the particular communication needs of children and their difficulties in accessing adult style services. We outline above (paragraphs 29 - 35) the considerable benefits in maintaining the NYAS model of service provision. On the current rigid proposals in the consultation paper such a valuable resource would be lost with no adequate provision being made to replace it.

37. Q 2 Are there any other areas of work within low volume categories that are so significantly distinct that it would be more appropriate to tender for this work separately from the rest of the category.

Please see our response to Q1 above and our comments regarding flexibility and the service provided by NYAS within our general comments above.

38. Q3 Do you agree with the types of services we intend to procure in each category of law? If not, how should services be structured to ensure more integrated advice?

As set out in paragraph 12 above we are concerned that due to the complexity of the work involved that it is unrealistic to rigidly expect all providers to be able to the provide Integrated Services A and Integrated Services B is more realistic. There should be sufficient flexibility to allow some providers to contract where they can't provide all the required minimum service combinations if sufficient expertise and/or demand is demonstrated in the category of law. Please see our comments in paragraphs 29 - 35above concerning NYAS.

39. Q 4 Do you agree with the types of civil legal aid service we will no longer procure? If not, why?

Q 5 Is it reasonable that, in order to maintain integrated services, where contracts have been awarded on the basis of multiple categories (e.g. debt, housing and welfare benefits), work in all categories usually lapses where the minimum new matter start size per contract year has not been met?

To ensure there is effective access to justice it is important to retain sufficient flexibility within the contract terms to permit some providers to contract for only some of the required minimum service combinations or to be able to cover the existing providers like NYAS.

40. Q 6 Are the minimum new matter start sizes required set at the right level in each category? If not, why ¡V for example, is there a case for setting lower new matter start sizes in rural areas?

If the LSC chooses to impose integrated services on an area, thus forcing erstwhile divorce solicitors to undertake care work and vice versa, the minimum new matter starts requirement of 100 private cases and 5 public law cases are plainly excessive and will prohibit certain firms continuing to conduct their core business; for a predominantly divorce and private practice to acquire 5 care cases and conversely, a care practitioner to start 100 private law or divorce cases would be a colossal undertaking. The minimum new matter start sizes appear too high, particularly in rural areas. It is very likely that providers in rural areas are going to struggle to meet the proposed new matter starts and lower levels should be set. If national organisations like NYAS are recognised then further consideration would need to be given to the level of new matter starts for that service on a national basis.

41. Q 7 Is the minimum supervisor to caseworker ratio set at the correct level or are there, for example, some categories where processes are simpler, and as such require less supervision?

It is of concern that very little detail is given as to what the minimum requirements of a 'caseworker' are. As is acknowledged in paragraph 4.38 there will always be variation, dependent on the relative experience of caseworkers and supervisors. The LSC have indicated that there are no minimum standards to be a 'caseworker'. The LSC needs to specify with precision exactly what minimum standards are needed to qualify as 'supervisor' and 'caseworker' respectively.

42. Q 17: Do you foresee any issues with the proposed definition of permanent and part time presence?

Q 18: Does the type of presence proposed in a procurement area for family and social welfare law advice achieve the right balance of ensuring client access to service whilst being practical for providers?

Account must be taken of the geographical layout of the procurement area and a realistic assessment and cost of the facilities available (ie public transport) for clients to be able to access advice, either face to face or otherwise. Just having a presence (full or part time) in one concentrated part of a procurement area may severely prejudice the ability of clients (adult and children) to effectively access providers for advice.

43. Q 40 Do you agree with the proposal to remove experts' cancellation and administration fees from the scope of public funding in all civil cases and to cap rates for experts' travel and waiting time.

Placing cancellation fees outside the scope of the certificate will not stop experts requiring a solicitor to sign a contract agreeing the payment of these fees. This is common practice and will place solicitors in an invidious position. The idea that an expert, often a medical practitioner, who will often have booked unpaid leave to attend court, can find remunerative work at a day's notice deserves closer scrutiny. The only impact of this proposal, other than to reduce the dwindling pool of experts available, is to discourage advocates making an informed decision about witness requirements until the last minute. The FLBA agrees that the cost of experts can be better managed but the experts themselves must be clearly aware of the need for reforms and participate in the consultation in order for these changes not to impact adversely on the needs of the clients. Any steps that risk reducing the pool of available experts will not be in the public interest due to the increased social and legal costs caused by any delay in a determination of the issues and/or conclusion of the proceedings.

44. Q 41 Do you agree that change of name work should be made available only by telephone?

We do not agree with this. We are extremely surprised by the assertion that 'changes of name rarely present legal issues'. A significant body of case law has grown up on this very issue over a number of years, including the House of Lords decision in Dawson v Wearmouth [1999] 1 FLR 1167 in which Lord Mackay observed (we emphasise) that "the name of a child is not a trivial matter but an important matter, and is not a question to be resolved without regard to the child's welfare." (our emphasis added). Changes of name often involve difficult questions concerning the child's biological, familial, and social connections and associations. We do not accept that there is "no substantive legal work typically involved in changing one's name" (paragraph 7.14). While we can accept that changes of name which are being carried out with the consent of those with parental responsibility should not involve detailed work (and can be conducted fairly with the assistance of the CLA telephone service), contentious or potentially contentious changes should not be considered in the telephone scheme. Such applications can often be part of other applications issued. For example in Re F [2007] EWHC 2543 the mother's application to change the children's names, in addition to other applications to protect herself and the children from their violent father, were granted by Sumner J as the change of name protected the children from the risk of further abduction.

45. Q 50: Do you consider that the impacts on experts are justifiable in ensuring sustainable access to legal services for clients?

See comments at paragraph 43above. It is unclear from the terminology used what effect this will have to the NYAS model which is widely acknowledged to provide excellent value for money and effective outcomes for children. If NYAS is to be affected proper investigation into the impact of such changes must be investigated.

46. Q 51: Do you have any comments on any prospective impacts of these proposals on clients and providers?

Q 54: Do you think there will be an impact of clients and providers on the basis of sexual orientation or religion or belief?

Q 55: Do you have any comments on the prospective impacts of these proposals on clients and providers on the basis of ethnicity, gender, age and disability?

These proposals for the reasons outlined above will adversely impact access to family justice. For example there will be a direct adverse impact on young clients who would find it difficult to access services and would thereby be denied access to justice. They will reduce the level of expertise available through providers in fixed premises in fixed procurement areas who have to take on increased levels of services. This will result in a limitation of provision. It is likely that there will be an adverse impact on clients and providers (including the Bar) who are women and/or from a BME background.

47. Q 56: Do you have any comments on any prospective impacts of these proposals on small firms?

It is unclear what, if any, analysis has been undertaken of the service offered by 'small firms' and the effect on them of these proposals. It appears clear that small firms, which may serve a local or national area and a particular client base will be adversely affected by these proposals if the proposals regarding procurement areas and levels of service remain as rigid as set out in the consultation paper.

48. Q 57: Do you consider there to be any adverse impacts on clients and providers in rural communities in the proposals outlined in the consultation paper?

Yes for the reasons outlined above. In summary, clients will have less access to justice as fewer providers will be further away and providers in rural areas will cease to operate as they will be unable to meet the rigid requirements set out in the consultation paper. This is already happening on the ground.

Family Law Bar Association

22^nd January 2009