The last blog looked at the proposals for legal aid reform. This item concentrates on one specific aspect of the proposed reforms, the reduction in police station fees.

The LSC currently spends £180m on police station advice and this spend is distributed across a network of police station duty schemes, all of which have separate fees. The claim is that there is inconsistency in the LSC’s current police station fees model. Quoted figures are that the fixed fee levels now in place vary widely across different schemes, between £140 and £340 per matter, including those that are geographically close to each other or have similar characteristics. Examples given are that fixed fees in London range from £249 in Bexley to £340 in Heathrow, while, in the Humberside criminal justice area, fees range from £163 in Scunthorpe to £226 in Goole. It was hoped that any inefficiencies in these fees would be resolved through best value tendering, but implementation depends on the pilot evaluation in 2012, with full roll-out not occurring until 2013 at the earliest. Therefore MoJ believe “that the current high levels of disparity in fees between areas should be narrowed now in order to reduce these in-built inconsistencies”.

The proposal is to rationalise the cost of police station duty schemes which combine the highest cost with the most oversubscription, excluding those areas that are best value tendering pilot areas. A total of 88 police duty schemes have been identified which are oversubscribed by over 400 per cent. These schemes also have fees which are above the national median national fee of £200. These fees are to be reduced by around 11 per cent, with the preferred option to reduce fees in areas that are both over-subscribed and have above median fees. 50% of these areas are located in London. It is not apparently proposed to reduce exceptional case thresholds.

The Law Society has launched a robust rebuttal of the proposals but their case would be considerably strengthened if everyone involved added their views. The consultation poses two specific questions:-

Question 1: Do you agree that reductions should be made only against areas that are both over-subscribed with above median fees?

Question 2: Do you have any other suggestions that would tackle the fee inequalities and deliver the required savings?

Answer these questions by all means, but do not be restricted by their limited range. You have nothing to lose by giving your views and, just possibly, something to gain. As my mother used to say, it’s better to light one small candle than curse the darkness.
You have until 12 November to make submissions. The full text of the consultation exercise can be found at:-

http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/docs/legal-aid-funding-reforms.pdf

Criminal firms have seen the introduction of fixed fee schemes for police work and a standard fee system in magistrates courts following a review of legal services by Lord Carter three years ago. Now the consultations on proposals for competitive tendering by criminal defence work firms have come to an end, with solicitors’ firms across the country voicing strong opposition to the proposed system.

The Law Society, the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association are all gravely concerned about BVT as currently proposed by the LSC, involving a limited scheme which would cover lower crime work in police stations and the Magistrates’ Courts. This would probably be extended should it prove successful. BVT involves competitive tendering based on price for criminal defence work, as solicitors’ firms will bid for blocks of work, with the lowest bidder getting the work. Strong concerns are expressed that criminal legal aid firms could be drastically reduced, meaning the number of firms available to clients will diminish, as the already financially vulnerable supplier base is put at risk. “The widespread use of BVT is likely to… deny clients access to many competent and dedicated solicitors who want to serve them. The bidding processes proposed are opaque and not suited to the commissioning of professional services, where the freedom of the individual is put at risk”, said Paul Marsh, Law Society President.

In their response to the proposals, the Law Society said that they will have a hugely detrimental impact on the quality of representation in police stations, and thereby damage the criminal justice system as a whole. Of equal concern is the failure to conduct a full and proper impact assessment, taking account of the potential disproportionate impact on women and BME practitioners. Desmond Browne QC, the Chairman of the Bar, said that “we cannot afford to sacrifice the present robust system for a scheme which lacks all economic justification, and which will have a disproportionate impact on BME practitioners. The LSC’s failure properly to assess the impact on BME practitioners is potentially discriminatory and may be unlawful; it has a statutory duty to avoid discrimination and promote equality of opportunity, and it has comprehensively failed to comply with this requirement”.

Speaking at a conference organised by the Legal Action Group to celebrate 60 years of legal aid, justice department minister Lord Bach said that BVT is “not a simple cost cutting exercise. It’s aimed at securing a sustainable, effective and efficient supplier base”. In an interview with the ‘Guardian’ he acknowledged that his policies are deeply unpopular among many former colleagues, adding that “I have to do what I can to ensure the legal aid is spent in the best possible way, and that’s what I’m trying to do.”

The Law Society’s response to the Legal Services Commission’s consultation on best value tendering for CDS contracts 2010 can be found at:-
http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/secure/file/180185/e:/teamsite-deployed/documents/templatedata/Internet%20Documents/Government%20proposals/Documents/bvt_response180609.pdf