It has been revealed today that criminal defence lawyers led by the Law Society have successfully fought off plans for the introduction of competitive tendering. The planned cuts to reduce the £1 billion criminal legal budget by £220m will go ahead though.

 

A fee cut of 17.5 per cent for police station and lower courts cases will be introduced in two phases; the first of 8.5 per cent will be introduced in February next year. The top end of the Bar has been hit hard by the proposals as a cut of 30 per cent in fees for very high cost cases in the Crown and higher courts will go ahead as planned.

 

LAG understands that all firms meeting a quality criteria will be able to undertake own client work and there will be a tender process for police station duty slots based on firms’ capacity and capability to undertake the work. For many criminal legal aid practitioners the deal thrashed out by the Law Society might not be particularly welcome, as it will mean a big reduction in income for all and is still likely to lead to closure of some firms. However, it is probably the best that could have been achieved in the circumstances, as the government was unlikely to shift from its bottom line, which was the need to find cuts.

 

LAG's main concerns are over the proposals around scope cuts and to changes in eligibility for legal aid. The signs are that the government has not listened to any of the representations on these issues. We understand that the cut to prison law cases will go ahead. So far in the media coverage of the proposals there has been no mention of the plans to further restrict judicial review, which might well mean that the government intends to implement these without amendment as well. LAG believes that the government has modified the proposed residence test to qualify for legal aid, but this might only mean that it will allow babies under 12 months back into the system. The details of the proposals will be announced later today followed by a six-week consultation period.

 

The changes to scope and eligibility will only save small amounts of cash, but will have a damaging impact on access to justice for vulnerable people and make it harder to hold the state to account. They are motivated by an ideology which wants to tip the balance of power decisively away from individuals and towards the state and they should be resisted. The further consultation is an opportunity to again put the arguments against these proposals.