News
A legal challenge to the Lord Chancellor’s plans to overhaul the £2bn-a-year legal aid scheme is being considered by the Law
Society.
Counsel has been instructed to examine the feasibility of a judicial review challenge, and society vice president, Andrew Holroyd, has told the profession that the society will “carefully consider whether there are grounds” to call for a review.
As the society this week prepares to discuss a motion on the issue at a Special General Meeting, Holroyd also calls on the profession to present a united front in the face of the radical impending changes to the legal aid scheme.
He says: “If we break into different factional groups now, we will weaken our position in relation to the government and legal aid practitioners and their clients will be the losers.”
One hundred and seventy-five solicitors supported a motion by Southampton solicitor Roger Peach urging the Law Society to reject the principle of price competitive tendering for criminal legal aid services and to renegotiate new terms for criminal defence contracts.
Des Hudson, Law Society chief executive, says: “If a solicitor fails to win the contract in your area to do legal aid work, then you won’t be in business for the next round of competitive tendering. So how does this process survive beyond the first round?”
However, in last week’s special debate on the future of legal aid in the Commons, Legal Aid Minister Vera Baird said the reforms to the legal aid system—which take effect from April 2007—will ensure good quality advice is available for the most vulnerable groups of people.
This debate was the only opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of the proposals to revamp the 50-year-old legal aid scheme, because they do not require primary legislation.
Baird said: “This is not a cost-cutting exercise. Our legal aid system is the best in the world and the best-funded in the world, costing each taxpayer £100 per year—much more than in any other country.
“If there were a windfall for legal aid in the budget tomorrow, we would still make these changes, since we must make best use of taxpayers’ money.”
She added that if providers do not pass the appropriate level of peer review, they will not be entitled to any work.
