header-logo header-logo

28 June 2007
Issue: 7279 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus
printer mail-detail

Government digs in over legal aid reform

The government is refusing to back down on its plans to overhaul the country’s legal aid system, despite swingeing attacks from MPs and stakeholders.

In its response to a recent Constitutional Affairs Select Committee report—Implementation of the Carter Review of Legal Aid, which attacked many of the proposals for reform and warned the government to slow down implementation—the government says it will stand firm on its reform programme.

This week the Legal Services Commission (LSC) announced a further consultation setting out alternative options for duty solicitor slot allocation for police station and magistrates’ court work from October 2007. A consultation on a proposed quality assurance scheme for publicly funded criminal advocates practising at crown court level and above has also been announced.

Fixed and graduated fees in all major elements of the legal aid scheme are still planned, but the LSC has agreed to phase in the introduction of some elements of the new fixed fees for family legal aid work.
Also published this week are final fixed fee schemes for family and family mediation, mental health and police station work, together with changes to the funding code for child care proceedings.

Accusing the government of “wilful blindness”, Richard Miller, chair of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, says: “The introduction of fixed fees in October is to go ahead. Which bit of ‘The introduction of these fee schemes for the short transitional period should therefore be halted’ [in the committee report] did they mistake for an endorsement?”

He continues: “The government says that it ‘does not accept that the provider base is generally in decline’, despite ample evidence from independent consultants that shows it is.”

Andrew Holroyd, Law Society vice president, accuses the government of “sticking its head in the sand” and ignoring warnings from all sides.
“This reform programme is being rushed and the danger is that many firms do not have the financial reserves to survive what will certainly be a difficult transitional period.”

He urges the government to take more time to devise a realistic plan to avoid “irretrievably decimating access to justice, a key plank of a civilised society put in place by the reforming post-war Labour government”.
Tuckers partner Andrew Keogh says: “This government is in denial if it thinks the current proposals to be viable. So far we have seen only price cuts.”

Issue: 7279 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll