Breaking News from the LSG
The government has postponed the
implementation of its legal aid reforms by six months and its consultation
on price-competitive tendering for crime work by two years.
In a
written ministerial statement today, justice secretary Kenneth Clarke said
the government will push back a consultation on crime tendering from
late-2011 until autumn 2013, taking account of changes such as the advent
of alternative business structures, in addition to the legal aid
reforms.
It is anticipated that the first tender will open in
autumn 2014 with the first contracts going live in summer 2015.
Implementation of ‘all’ the highly controversial legal aid reforms
currently going through parliament will be pushed back six months, from
October 2012 to April 2013.
The elements to be postponed
include:
The abolition of the Legal Services Commission (LSC)
and the establishment of an executive agency to replace it
Introduction of new contracts for the delivery of civil legal aid
reflecting the future scope of the scheme
Implementation of a
mandatory telephone gateway to access civil legal aid advice; and
Introduction of revised eligibility criteria to access civil legal aid
Clarke’s statement said: ‘The government believes that competitive
tendering is likely to be the best way to ensure long-term sustainability
and value for money in the legal aid market. Pressure on legal aid
expenditure is likely to continue, increasing the need for further reform
of the current arrangements for administratively-set remuneration rates in
the absence of competition.’
He added: ‘The government believes
that tendering criminal defence work for competition, alongside regulatory
changes, has the potential to significantly modernise legal aid provision,
improve the service provided to legal aid clients, streamline the
procurement process and deliver value for money for the taxpayer.’
But he said the development of a competition strategy is likely to have a
substantial impact on the market for legally aided services, together with
a number of other current developments, which will ‘require significant
levels of engagement between the government and the profession.’
On legal aid, a Ministry of Justice spokesman said: ‘The government is
committed to providing a legal aid scheme which targets resources at people
who need legal support the most, and on the most serious cases.
‘In addition we are committed to ensuring lawyers compete for legal aid
work, so that the taxpayer receives better value for money. This will
ensure a more efficient, cost-effective and sustainable legal aid scheme
for the future.’
He added: ‘New contracts to provide civil and
family advice will be offered to lawyers in April 2013, which will give
them sufficient time to consider the final details of the new legal aid
scheme which parliament is expected to agree in spring 2012.
‘Once lawyers have adjusted to the new scheme and other regulatory
changes, we will consult in autumn 2013 on introducing competition for
criminal defence work, with a view to extending it to civil and family work
at a later date.'
The Law Society welcomed the delay in
implementing new rules governing civil and family legal aid.
Chief executive Desmond Hudson said: ‘We have repeatedly warned that
implementation of the proposed changes to legal aid scope and provision by
October 2012 was impractical.
‘The government has taken a
sensible decision to defer this deadline. The new timetable is
still challenging, given the work required to implement changes of this
magnitude.’
He said the society has already started working with
the LSC on the issues that must be resolved to produce a workable system
from the proposals in the bill.
He added: ‘Like other small
businesses, law firms need reasonable notice of changes affecting them.
This announcement is a welcome recognition of that need. But even given a
more workable implementation timetable,
solicitors and their clients who rely upon
legal aid to secure justice are not well served by the poorly-evidenced and
ill-conceived measures in the bill.
‘The bill will not deliver
the claimed financial savings and risks denying access to justice to all
but the well-off. This delay to the implementation schedule offers a window
of opportunity to work with stakeholders in improving [it].’
Commenting on the delayed tendering consultation, Hudson said: ‘Criminal
defence firms will be grateful for the certainty that they have been given
for the next three years; and in particular, firms that do both criminal
and civil work will be glad only to have to consider changes in one part of
the business over the next eighteen months.
‘This will also
afford time for the LSC and government to discuss together with
practitioner groups how best to improve the way criminal legal aid
works.’
President of the London Criminal Courts Solicitors
Association, Jim Meyer, also welcomed the moves.
He said: ‘It is
our hope that this sensible decision is the start of a constructive
engagement with the legal profession on the future of legal aid.
‘Overwhelmingly access to justice is provided by small, highly productive
businesses located in the hearts of communities. There is an opportunity to
rethink policy and rebuild legal services so damaged by the policies of the
last decade.'
He added: ‘A start could be made by a reassessment
of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill currently
before parliament which, in its current form, will further cut access to
much-needed legal services for the most disadvantaged people in our
society.’
Meyer said that given the complexities of the market,
the timetable was always viewed as unrealistic.
But he
added: ‘The sigh of relief by many will be tempered, however, with the
knowledge that the sword of Damocles, otherwise known as price-competitive
tendering, hangs over them for the next three years.
‘The delay
will give time for the cuts in legal aid fees to be properly realised. Then
maybe government will accept what the profession already knows: funding is
already cut to the bone.’
Meyer added: ‘Now is the time for
solicitors to compose themselves, regroup and consider how they wish to
compete in the future.’
Forum 
Scotland 
England and Wales 
