header-logo header-logo

MPs asked to support fragile legal aid system

11 January 2007
Issue: 7255 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus
printer mail-detail

News

MPs have been briefed on the fragile state of criminal legal aid before this week’s crucial Westminster Hall debate on the future of legal aid.
Andrew Holroyd, vice president of the Law Society, says the society has circulated a full briefing paper to all MPs in England and Wales, outlining its concerns about the effects of Lord Carter’s proposals for overhauling legal aid.

“It’s vital that we get as much interest as we can from MPs and explain to them just how desperate the legal aid system is and how bad things are getting because of lack of funding and the need for further investment.
“When you consider just how paltry increases in legal aid rates have been since 1993 up to the present time—probably less than 1% per annum over those 13 years when the costs of supplying the service have gone up over 40%—there is very little fat in the system left to cut.

The government is risking a lot by pushing practitioners further down a road where people are saying what’s the point of being in this game any more—we just can’t make it pay.”

Concerns about Lord Carter’s proposals to reduce the £2bn legal aid budget and introduce price-competitive tendering will also be discussed by society
members at a special general neeting on legal aid on 17 January, after Southampton solicitor, Roger Peach, rallied support for direct action.
Holroyd says: “There isn’t an awful lot of difference between us and Mr Peach.

We all are extremely concerned about the
situation in relation to criminal legal aid. We think it’s wholly
unreasonable—when it’s clear that the supplier base is very fragile—for the government to be making more cuts to the system.”

Meanwhile the society and the Bar Council are pressing members of the House of Lords to consider key amendments to the Legal
Services Bill.

Bar Council chairman, Geoffrey Vos QC, says: “We support the main thrust of the Legal Services Bill, but there is a real risk of its true goals being impeded if it is not now made the subject of detailed fine-tuning by the House of Lords.”

Issue: 7255 / 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