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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll