header-logo header-logo

03 January 2008
Issue: 7302 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Procedure & practice , Profession
printer mail-detail

Questions raised over tendering plans

Legal Services

A consultation on the principles of best value tendering (BVT) for criminal defence services, and a policy paper—Assuring and Improving Quality in the Reformed Legal Aid System—have been published by the Legal Services Commission (LSC).

The paper considers three options for the provision of criminal legal aid services: to continue to set prices administratively; switch to a national public defender system; or move to BVT—the option the LSC favours. Tendering would take place from January 2009 in Avon and Greater Manchester, followed by a further three phases from January 2010 to  January 2011, the latter two of which would include crown court work.

Contracting in the first phase would cover police station and magistrates’ court work. The two would be linked, possibly by having a single fee for any case of either type, or by asking firms to bid against a matrix. The LSC proposes to consult on a single fee for crown court cases this year.

Carolyn Regan, LSC chief executive, says that moving to a competitive market for the majority of services is the right way forward.

“BVT would set sustainable prices and achieve the best possible value for the legal aid budget while ensuring quality advice for legal aid clients. This will benefit clients, reassure taxpayers and ensure that the market sets the price for providers’ services,” she says.

However, Law Society president Andrew Holroyd says several questions about how BVT could operate in the legal aid world remain unanswered in this consultation.

“The LSC must tell us, for example: how firms can tender when volume cannot be guaranteed; how solicitors can tender for multiple contracts to businesses that will be competing against each other; how the LSC will ensure that BME [black and minority ethnic] firms are treated equally and in a non-discriminatory manner; and, fundamentally, how firms can offer a rational bid when the government keeps changing the criminal justice system,” he says. “If the LSC cannot answer these questions but presses on with BVT, the society is concerned that the firms they need to provide the service will be driven out of legal aid and it will be impossible to rebuild the supplier base,” he adds.

The BVT consultation runs until 3 March 2008.

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