header-logo header-logo

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

Government digs in over legal aid reform

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

Slater Heelis—Charlotte Beck

Slater Heelis—Charlotte Beck

Partner and Manchester office lead appointed head of family

Civil Justice Council—Nigel Teasdale

Civil Justice Council—Nigel Teasdale

DWF insurance services director appointed to Civil Justice Council

R3—Jodie Wildridge

R3—Jodie Wildridge

Kings Chambers barrister appointed chair of R3 Yorkshire

NEWS

The abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC

Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation
Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group
A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision
An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading
back-to-top-scroll