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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll