At a meeting yesterday morning in London, the legal aid minister, Lord McNally, defended the government’s plans to introduce competitive tendering for criminal legal aid. While he said that the government would consider any responses to the consultation paper published on 9 April, it would not delay as the Ministry of Justice 'wants to keep momentum going on the planned reforms'.

 

Lord McNally was speaking to an audience of legal aid lawyers and policy specialists who attended the Westminster Legal Policy Forum event, 'Implementing the new framework for legal aid - funding, scope and remuneration'. Stephanie Brownlees, a solicitor from Birmingham, asked the minister to justify the removal of own client work, which she said was one of the best ways of ensuring quality in the system. She also expressed concern that many good firms would be forced out of criminal legal aid if the 'current 80-95 firms which now practise in Birmingham are reduced to 20' as the consultation paper envisages. In reply, Lord McNally said that 'quality was indicated by survival' and that the 'profession itself needs to restructure and produce more efficient business models, but as we know from other sections of the economy this can be painful'.

 

Earlier in the morning LAG asked Hugh Barrett, Director of Legal Aid Commissioning at the Legal Aid Agency (LAA), whether the LAA had any contingency plans if the competitive tendering system proves unworkable and firms do not bid? He replied that it would be able to respond to this by 'setting administrative fees on a regional basis' in areas where there were insufficient bidders.

 

In the meeting opinions differed on whether firms would tender for contracts under the current proposals. Roger Smith, the former director of Justice, said that he believed they would, while Richard Miller, Head of Legal Aid at the Law Society, said that the plans and timescale for competitive tendering were completely unrealistic: 'What is proposed is wiping out the whole market in three months and replacing it with something else. Come back to us when you have something which will work.'

 

In consultation periods ministers tend to hold the line and give no indication that they might be willing to make concessions. This is what Lord McNally was doing yesterday morning. He seems prepared for another hard fought battle with legal aid providers, acknowledging the government is 'taking on probably the most articulate profession where it hurts'. Pressure, though, is mounting on the government. Barristers and solicitors in Manchester held a day of protest yesterday over the proposed changes to criminal legal aid and organisations representing solicitors have joined together to organise a meeting  in London on 22 May to debate what action to take.

 

LAG believes that concessions are possible, including the abandonment of competitive tendering for criminal legal aid. What also seems certain though, is that there will be further cuts to fees, as at the root of the government’s proposals is the aim to save cash and it does not seem too concerned over how this is achieved.