header-logo header-logo

Best value bidding will harm quality, Bar group warns

06 March 2008
Issue: 7311 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Legal services , Profession
printer mail-detail

News

An independent group of lawyers and other professionals has criticised the “paucity” of detail in the Legal Services Commission’s proposals for Best Value Tendering (BVT) for criminal legal aid.

The Bar Council’s working group on BVT, responding this week to the LSC’s consultation paper in December, warns the proposals are likely to damage quality of provision, reduce choice and harm diversity. BVT introduces a market-driven approach to legal aid procurement and would see firms bidding for the right to provide the work. However the working group— made up of senior barristers, a former president of the General Medical Council, a former Court of Appeal Judge, a former Law Society president, and a leading professor of economics—slates the LSC for providing too little detail. Desmond Browne QC, chair of the group, says: “The paucity of detail provided by the LSC has made it impossible for the working group to comment on the proposals in a meaningful way.” The group supports the view of the House of Commons’ constitutional affairs select committee, which described the proposals for BVT as “a breathtaking risk”. It expresses concern about the absence of a robust mechanism for ensuring quality, and cite a report in 2000, which shows that BVT drove down quality and lowered the quality of representation when it was introduced in the . Tim Dutton QC, chair of the Bar Council, says: “‘The Bar Council is surprised that the LSC has not published any details of the proposed scheme, nor conducted any analysis of the potential impact on quality or on ethnic minority clients. This is remarkable since the LSC’s own experts MDA, as well as the constitutional affairs select committee, advised them that a full impact assessment was vital before any proposals were developed.

“If the proposals are implemented and extended to the Crown Court, they will damage access to justice for BME clients, as well as the diversity of the Bar and, by extension, the judiciary. Such a development would clearly not be in the public interest, and is something I am determined to resist.” An LSC spokesperson says: “Subject to the outcome of the current consultation we will undertake a further consultation later in 2008.

“We believe that moving to a competitive market for most legal aid work is the best way to deliver quality services at the best possible price. Stringent quality standards are at the centre of the proposals and firms will have to meet these before being allowed to bid for legal aid work.”

More than two-thirds of solicitors say they are “strongly against” the LSC’s proposals, in a recent Law Society survey.

Issue: 7311 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Legal services , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Firm announces appointment of chief legal officer

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Firm bolsters Manchester insurance practice with double partner appointment

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

NEWS
Transferring anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing supervision to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) could create extra paperwork and increase costs for clients, lawyers have warned 
In this week's NLJ, Bhavini Patel of Howard Kennedy LLP reports on Almacantar v De Valk [2025], a landmark Upper Tribunal ruling extending protection for leaseholders under the Building Safety Act 2022
Writing in NLJ this week, Hanna Basha and Jamie Hurworth of Payne Hicks Beach dissect TV chef John Torode’s startling decision to identify himself in a racism investigation he denied. In an age of ‘cancel culture’, they argue, self-disclosure can both protect and imperil reputations
As he steps down as Chancellor of the High Court, Sir Julian Flaux reflects on over 40 years in law, citing independence, impartiality and integrity as guiding principles. In a special interview with Grania Langdon-Down for NLJ, Sir Julian highlights morale, mentorship and openness as key to a thriving judiciary
Dinsdale v Fowell is a High Court case entangling bigamy, intestacy and modern family structures, examined in this week's NLJ by Shivi Rajput of Stowe Family Law
back-to-top-scroll