header-logo header-logo

Government digs in over legal aid reform

28 June 2007
Issue: 7279 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus
printer mail-detail

The government is refusing to back down on its plans to overhaul the country’s legal aid system, despite swingeing attacks from MPs and stakeholders.

In its response to a recent Constitutional Affairs Select Committee report—Implementation of the Carter Review of Legal Aid, which attacked many of the proposals for reform and warned the government to slow down implementation—the government says it will stand firm on its reform programme.

This week the Legal Services Commission (LSC) announced a further consultation setting out alternative options for duty solicitor slot allocation for police station and magistrates’ court work from October 2007. A consultation on a proposed quality assurance scheme for publicly funded criminal advocates practising at crown court level and above has also been announced.

Fixed and graduated fees in all major elements of the legal aid scheme are still planned, but the LSC has agreed to phase in the introduction of some elements of the new fixed fees for family legal aid work.
Also published this week are final fixed fee schemes for family and family mediation, mental health and police station work, together with changes to the funding code for child care proceedings.

Accusing the government of “wilful blindness”, Richard Miller, chair of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, says: “The introduction of fixed fees in October is to go ahead. Which bit of ‘The introduction of these fee schemes for the short transitional period should therefore be halted’ [in the committee report] did they mistake for an endorsement?”

He continues: “The government says that it ‘does not accept that the provider base is generally in decline’, despite ample evidence from independent consultants that shows it is.”

Andrew Holroyd, Law Society vice president, accuses the government of “sticking its head in the sand” and ignoring warnings from all sides.
“This reform programme is being rushed and the danger is that many firms do not have the financial reserves to survive what will certainly be a difficult transitional period.”

He urges the government to take more time to devise a realistic plan to avoid “irretrievably decimating access to justice, a key plank of a civilised society put in place by the reforming post-war Labour government”.
Tuckers partner Andrew Keogh says: “This government is in denial if it thinks the current proposals to be viable. So far we have seen only price cuts.”

Issue: 7279 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll