header-logo header-logo

04 May 2007
Issue: 7271 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , Profession
printer mail-detail

Commons committee condemns legal aid reform

The government’s plans for legal aid were dealt a serious blow this week after they were savaged by an influential parliamentary committee.

The Commons Constitutional Affairs Committee says it fears that if the proposed reforms to the legal aid system go ahead there is a serious risk for access to justice among the most vulnerable in society.

The move to competitive tendering among firms for legal aid contracts must be properly piloted before it is implemented, the committee says. It also calls on government to scrap the “transitional period” of fixed fees, claiming it could lead to significant cuts in income for many legal aid lawyers and prove to be unsustainable.

The committee attacked the government for penny-pinching in some ways yet failing to focus on areas where cost is actually increasing, namely crown court defence work and public law children cases.

Committee chair, Alan Beith MP, says: “The risks inherent in these largely untested and unpiloted reform plans might be justified were the whole system in utter crisis but large parts

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll