Last Wednesday Secretary of State for Justice, Ken Clarke, made a written statement to the Commons on Competitive Tendering. The proposed timetable has yet again slipped back.
He told the Commons: “The Government believe that tendering criminal defence work for competition, alongside regulatory changes, has the potential to significantly modernise legal aid provision, improve the service provided to legal aid clients, streamline the procurement process and deliver value for money for the taxpayer.” In a thinly veiled threat he said: “Pressure on legal aid expenditure is likely to continue, increasing the need for further reform of the current arrangements for administratively set remuneration rates in the absence of competition.”
He added: “Clearly the development of a competition strategy will be likely to have a substantial impact on the market for legally aided services, as will a number of other current developments. These changes will require significant levels of engagement between the Government and the profession. We plan to begin these discussions in early 2013 once the key components of our legal aid reform package, the regulatory changes allowing alternative business structures, and the introduction of the quality assurance scheme for advocates have had time to bed down. We will publish a full formal consultation document on the competition strategy towards the end of that year.”

The revised timetable will be:

Consultation paper published: Autumn 2013

Response to consultation paper: Spring 2014

Tender opens in first competition areas: Autumn 2014

First contracts go live: Summer 2015

In an almost throw-away last paragraph of this statement he went on to say: “I would also like to inform the House that we intend, subject to parliamentary approval of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, to implement all of the legal aid reforms in April 2013. This will include the abolition of the Legal Services Commission under the Bill and the creation of the new agency in its place.” This amounts to a six-month delay to the programme.

The ‘Guardian’ reports that Labour’s shadow justice secretary, Sadiq Khan, said: “This six-month stay of execution due to government incompetence will do little to reassure the millions of people who rely of social welfare legal aid to gain access to justice. Rather than delaying the implementation of their disastrous reforms to social welfare legal aid, which supports some of the most vulnerable people in our society, this government should abandon them completely.”

The bill goes to the committee stage in the House of Lords on 20 December. At its second reading in the chamber last month, the proposed legal aid cuts were savaged by the overwhelming majority of speakers in the debate. Since then Lord Wilson, the newest appointment to the supreme court, and Sir Nicholas Wall, president of the family division, have added their voices to the opposition. Three other supreme justices – Lord Hope, Lady Hale and Lord Dyson – have also expressed concern about the effect of government proposals to save £350m a year by reducing the availability of legal aid.

The Government showed with the Public Bodies bill last month that they are prepared to jettison proposals to ensure the passage of a bill. It will be interesting to see how they react to the Lords’ amendments and what, if anything, is thrown off the sledge to escape the chasing pack.

“You cannot override market forces …. We cannot secure your future for you, you must secure your own future.”
John Wotton, Law Society President, 17th October 2011

With these words, John Wotton made it very clear that the profession needs to start taking responsibility for itself in the business arena. Speaking at the Sussex Law Society Annual Conference, he said that many solicitors are very worried about the fundamental changes they are now facing and that he doesn’t have a crystal ball. “It would be wrong to say that everything will be fine”. He confirmed that times could be very difficult for small high street firms who will particularly be in the eye of the oncoming storm. ABS is a driver of change and it isn’t the only one. Reduced availability of legal aid and the changed expectations of both clients and younger lawyers will also drive that change.

It was clear from his address that the Law Society is has a better understanding than many of its members of the challenges firms are facing now. Indeed it seemed at times as if both he and his co-speaker, the Chair of the SRA, were trying very hard to wake the legal profession up. There is a real fear amongst observers of the profession that it will sleep walk its way into a very avoidable disaster.

John Wotton advised delegates that a big issue is now risk management, which is why outcome focused regulation has been introduced by the SRA. Whilst he didn’t put it in these terms, it is clear that solicitors must understand the fact that risk management starts with having a plan for the survival of their firm in face of the oncoming commercial storm.

The President reminded delegates that risk management is important to clients – 47% indicated exactly that in the latest survey figures available to the Law Society. And he invited lawyers to consider this in positive terms. He pointed out that lawyers have an enviable reputation for the level of their training. They offer great guarantees of service through their regulatory structures, their Code of Ethics, indemnity insurance, the SRA and the ombudsman. These are all huge selling points in the new marketplace that is opening up.

The clear message is that ABS is the game changer. It offers much wider business opportunities than law firms have had before and it may well dilute our current perception of what a law firm actually is. Those opportunities though are the point for a well managed and entrepreneurial firm. Investment, partners from other professions and an opportunity to create a more commercially adept business is there for the taking now. He made a particular point of highlighting how the use of a good, well informed website will provide many ways of breaking down a client’s reluctance to instruct a solicitors firm.

The other clear message is that firms need to act now, a message echoed very strongly by the individual presidents of the local law societies who had come together for this conference. There is a gap opening up between the firms who have grasped the opportunity, as well as the challenge, in front of them, and those who are building their own self-fulfilling doom prophecies by doing nothing.

photo courtesy of Mike Quinn’s Profile on geograph.or.uk

Soon we will have Tesco Law. On present plans, 6 October is the date on which the first alternative business structures (ABS) will be able to open for business in the legal services marketplace in England and Wales. This will mean that for the first time non-lawyers can fully own and invest in law firms.

An ABS is a firm where a non-lawyer is a manager of the firm, or has an ownership-type interest in the firm. A non-lawyer is defined as a person who is not authorised under the Legal Services Act 2007 to carry out reserved legal activities. A firm may also be an ABS where another body is a manager of the firm, or has an ownership-type interest in the firm and at least 10 per cent of that body is controlled by non-lawyers. Under the proposed rules, ABS are not limited in the services that they can offer to the public.

It has been a long road since Sir David Clementi was appointed to conduct a review of the regulatory framework for legal services in England and Wales. He presented his report in December 2004. One of his terms of reference was:

“To consider what regulatory framework would best promote competition, innovation and the public and consumer interest in an efficient, effective and independent legal sector.

The outcome is ABS. The expressed belief is that ABS will bring benefits to consumers through increased competition, the development of new services and ways of delivering them and the integration of the delivery of legal services with other related services.

Enterprising firms have been positioning themselves to be in pole position when the starting gun is fired. A clear example of what Clementi had in mind is the online conveyancing service set up by Rightmove founder Harry Hill. His In-Deed Online operation allows people buying or selling a home to track the legal process from instruction to completion. The website was launched by Hill, the former chief of estate agents Countrywide, and Peter Gordon, a former partner at private equity group 3i. The firm has signed up two law firms to do the conveyancing work, which will operate under the In-Deed Online brand, and hopes to sign up another two. Their claim is: “Our online system was designed to make conveyancing simple and transparent. You can track every step towards completion online or on your mobile. We tell you what to expect, what we’re doing and what we need from you.” 

As they rightly point out, “You bank online, you shop online. Now you can do your conveyancing online.”
And so we come, finally, to the tipping point for the commercial future of the legal profession. In-deed.net is the tip of the iceberg. The difference is, perhaps for the first time, we now see how non-lawyers will seek to change the way law is practiced in England. The battleground will be online and the future belongs to anyone who uses it well.

Editors note: We don’t normally use the blog to sell ourselves but this is an important exception. Anya Designs has huge experience in both law firms and online commerce. We are probably the only legal software firm in the UK that genuinely understands how law and ecommerce work and when you decide to take the next steps in the new commercial landscape, we would really like to talk to you because a standard web agency may not understand the particular requirements of law firms. Call us on 0845 259 1276 and ask us questions!

“Today accident victims are given the impression that they may be entitled to handsome rewards just for making a claim regardless of any personal responsibility – adding to a real sense that we live in an increasingly litigious society…Britain’s ‘compensation culture’ is fuelled by media stories about individuals receiving large compensation payouts for personal injury claims and by constant adverts in the media offering people non-refundable inducements and the promise of a handsome settlement if they claim.”

So said Lord Young of Graffham in his report ‘Common Sense – Common Safety’ following his review, commissioned by the Prime Minister, of the operation of health and safety laws and the growth of the perceived compensation culture in England & Wales. The Ministry of Justice quote examples of advertising by claims management businesses that promote inducements and which are currently permitted:

“We’ll pay you £200 immediately after our solicitors approve your claim.”
“As soon as we accept your claim, we promise to give you a £150 cash advance.”
“If the solicitor believes they can win the case for you and accepts it, we will award you £300 as an up-front payment.”
The Ministry intend to put a stop to all this by preventing claims management businesses from offering any kind of financial or similar benefit as an inducement for making a claim at any stage throughout their dealings with a client. The proposal is to amend Rule 6b of the Conduct of Authorised Persons Rules 2007 by deleting:

“6. In soliciting business through advertising, marketing and other means a
business must –
b) Not offer an immediate cash payment or a similar benefit as an inducement for making a claim.”

and inserting:

“6. In soliciting business through advertising, marketing and other means a
business must –
b) Not offer any cash payments or similar benefits as an inducement for making a claim.”
MoJ have launched a consultation exercise on this proposal and are seeking contributions by 10 February.
For the full text of Lord Young’s report “Common Sense – Common Safety” see:

http://www.number10.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/402906_CommonSense_acc.pdf

The MoJ consultation paper is at:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/docs/consultation-claims-man-reg-cp1910.pdf

Last week the Scottish Parliament voted against a reform in the law on assisted dying by defeating Margo MacDonald’s Bill. Coincidentally in the same week came news of the launch of an independent inquiry into assisted dying in the UK.

The Commission on Assisted Dying, chaired by the former lord chancellor Lord Falconer, will review evidence from experts and the public and consider what system, if any, should exist to allow people to be assisted to die and whether any changes in the law should be introduced. The commission has been set up with funding provided by the author Terry Pratchett, who suffers from Alzheimer’s disease, and businessman Bernard Lewis. On their behalf Dignity in Dying has made the arrangements for its formation, and Demos will act as Secretariat, providing administrative and research support.

At the launch Lord Falconer said: “The purpose of the commission is to hear evidence, consider all the relevant material and then to write and report, addressing the issue of whether there needs to be a change of approach to the issue of assisted dying, and making recommendations as to what, if any, changes of the law and practice should be implemented.” The former Metropolitan police commissioner Lord Blair, a member of the Commission, said: “The legal and ethical questions surrounding assisting the already terminally ill or those with catastrophic injuries to choose the manner and timing of their deaths make the investigation of such deaths very difficult for the police and the families involved but the issues go far wider and have implications for all of us and the kind of society we wish to create.” The Commission, which will run from 30 November 2010 to September 2011, with a report launched in October 2011, has issued a public call for evidence and will publish all evidence submitted on its website.

The new Commission has had a mixed reception. Sarah Wootton, Chief Executive of Dignity in Dying said: “It is important that serious minds from different disciplines and perspectives give thought to the mechanisms of an assisted dying law; one of the most important social issues of our time.  No one wants people to suffer unnecessarily and against their wishes at the end of their lives, and of equal importance, no one wants potentially vulnerable people to be at risk of harm under new legislation.” The head of public affairs for the British Humanist Association, Naomi Phillips, said: “Earlier this year the BHA joined calls for an independent inquiry into assisted dying, to examine the evidence relating to a change in the law, to help towards evidence-based policy making on this sensitive issue. We very much welcome the launch of a new Commission and inquiry into assisted dying.”

But Richard Hawkes, chief executive of the disability charity Scope, said: “We are deeply concerned that this pseudo ‘Commission’ will not reflect the concerns and fears of many disabled people” and questioned how independent it really can be. Baroness Campbell, a leading disabled campaigner against legalising assisted suicide, shared this concern, and added: “If the commissioners and funders are heavily weighted towards those who support assisted suicide then the manner with which they will look at the evidence will be seen through this prism.” She said that she was keen to discover whether the commission would involve “knowledgeable disabled people with the experience of severe impairment.” Dr Peter Saunders, Director of the pro-life campaign group Care not Killing, said: “The fact that an ‘independent’ commission on ‘assisted dying’ is to be chaired by a peer who just last year tried to relax the law on assisted suicide, is being funded by a celebrity novelist who is passionately pushing for a change in the law and was dreamt up by a leading campaign group will certainly raise eyebrows.”

Anyone wishing to obtain the consultation document and/or contribute to the debate is invited to contact the Commission at:
http://commissiononassisteddying.co.uk/

Last Thursday Christopher Graham, the UK Information Commissioner, sent his report on the state of surveillance, and recommendations for action, to the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee. While welcoming strengthening of the data protection regime, he said that technological and societal developments mean that the risks to individual privacy remain real. The collection of personal information has become increasingly central to the activities of organisations in both the public and private sectors.

The study by the Surveillance Studies Network, which was requested by the Commons home affairs committee, is an update to their findings in 2006, which warned of the dangers of a surveillance society. Introducing the latest report, the Commissioner, said: “Many of the new laws that come into force every year in the UK have implications for privacy at their heart. My concern is that after they are enacted there is no one looking back to see whether they are being used as intended, or whether the new powers were indeed justified in practice.” One example of this is the use of covert CCTV surveillance by local councils to monitor parents in school catchment area disputes under powers designed to assist in crime prevention and detection. But he welcomed the fact that the recent change of Government had led to significant rolling back in some areas of state data collection, such as the abolition of the National Identity Register (NIR), the controversial database that formed the heart of the now abandoned identity cards scheme, and compliance with the European Court of Human Rights ruling on the National DNA Database.

The report says that some technologies have gone from being a subject of speculation to being in mainstream use in many different areas. The national roll-out of automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) highlights the expansion of video surveillance and analysis, and the linking or sharing of data from different databases. The blanket requirement by some licensing authorities to install CCTV in all licensed premises irrespective of need, the fingerprinting of passengers using common departure lounges at airports, and the creation of  blacklist databases are all causes for concern. ‘Function creep’ is the big danger, involving new uses for technologies or data beyond what was originally envisaged or legitimated. For instance, since 2005 the DVLA is said to have raised an estimated £44 million by selling details on 18 million registrations.

CCTV has also continued to find new applications. Middlesbrough police announced that they had fitted 7 of their 158 CCTV cameras with loud speakers enabling control-room staff to talk to those they were monitoring to shame low-level offenders into conformity. The Home Office initiated a £3 million national roll-out of body-worn CCTV to police forces after a trial in Plymouth. The deployment of unmanned helicopter drones in UK civilian airspace for policing purposes has begun with the recent trial conducted by Merseyside Police. The report could have included Greater Manchester Police’s £80,000 balloon, called the Eagle Eye Blimp , found wanting after just 18 surveillance sorties because it couldn’t cope with Manchester rain. Other concerns include body scanning, workplace monitoring, abuse of social networking, databrokers and the new breed of social geodemographic systems exemplified by Google Latitude.

The Commissioner makes several recommendations, including a requirement for a privacy impact assessment to be presented during the parliamentary process, robust privacy safeguards as the default setting when new on line services are offered to individuals, and increased post legislative scrutiny of legislation. The report concludes: “It will remain an important question, however, whether the current legal instruments, at UK and European levels, including specific data protection legislation as well as broader human rights law, are robust enough to limit surveillance and curb the excesses of data collection, or whether legal reform and better integration of legal and other regulatory instruments will be the linchpin upon which much else depends.” The full text of ‘Information Commissioner’s report to Parliament on the state of surveillance’ can be found at:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/library/Corporate/Research_and_reports/surveillance_report_for_home_select_committee.ashx

Last year this column had cause to comment several times on the bill that became the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 as it made its progress through Parliament. The Act received Royal Assent on 12 November 2009 after receiving, importantly in view of current events, cross-party support in both Houses of Parliament.

The creation of the post of Chief Coroner for England and Wales was at the heart of the Act. The role was designed to introduce national leadership of the coroner service, a crucial step in tackling unacceptable delays, inconsistent standards of service delivery and lack of accountability. The Act also contained measures to introduce a Medical Adviser to the Chief Coroner, deliver an improved service for bereaved people, including the introduction of a Charter for Bereaved People, and a system of appeals against coroners’ decisions. It also introduced national standards that coroners should meet, supported by training and guidance.

Then came the hammer blow. In a House of Commons Written Ministerial Statement on 14 October 2010, Justice Minister Jonathan Djanogly said: “However, after careful consideration, we have decided that in the current economic climate we cannot go ahead with plans to implement national leadership from a Chief Coroner, an appeals system, or a medical adviser. We have proposed that the abolition of the office of the Chief Coroner should be included in the Public Bodies Bill…and we are further considering the transfer of some of the Chief Coroner’s functions to suitable alternative bodies.” He went on to say: “We will continue to work collaboratively with coroners, local government and police authorities to deliver service improvements. We will also explore with voluntary sector organisations how we can work together better, so as to provide further support for people when they suffer a sudden or unexpected bereavement.” Peter Thornton QC, a Senior Circuit Judge at the Central Criminal Court, had been appointed to the post of Chief Coroner but had not yet taken up his duties. Now he won’t.

This announcement has provoked widespread dismay. The Royal British Legion had welcomed the original legislation, believing that the establishment of a Chief Coroner’s Office was critical to improving the working of the inquest system in relation to military inquests and provided necessary reforms to the inquest system, such as oversight and monitoring of investigations into Service deaths, compulsory training for coroners carrying out military inquests, and new rights of appeal for families. Reacting to the abolition, Chris Simpkins, Director General of the Legion, said: “We are concerned that the families of our fallen heroes will no longer have confidence that the circumstances of their loved ones’ deaths will be thoroughly investigated.” He added: “We believe this decision would be a deep betrayal of bereaved Service families.”

INQUEST, a charity which provides free legal advice to bereaved people, also condemned the announcement. Deborah Coles, Co-Director, said: “The dysfunctional and flawed inquest system is in need of complete reform. It is dishonest to suggest today’s proposals to tweak rules and regulations will deliver the fundamental change that is needed urgently.” She added: “Not only does this decision fail bereaved families but also society, which should have an inquest system fit for purpose in the 21st Century. The inquest is usually the only public forum in which contentious deaths such as accidents, deaths at work, deaths in custody or deaths of military personnel are subjected to public scrutiny. The current system is failing to perform its preventative function. Today’s announcement by the Coalition government will frustrate the opportunity to create a system which saves lives. This is a false economy if there ever was one.”

For the first time victims of stalking have had their ordeal recognised in official government guidance. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has published revised guidance on stalking and harassment. It emphasises the existence and widespread nature of stalking as a particular category of harassment and it identifies the various ways in which stalking occurs.

There is no legal definition of stalking, neither is there specific legislation to address this behaviour. It is a term used to describe a particular kind of harassment, and is generally used to describe a long-term pattern of persistent and repeated contact with, or attempts to contact, a particular victim. Harassment is also not specifically defined but can include repeated attempts to impose unwanted communications and contacts upon a victim in a manner that could be expected to cause distress or fear in any reasonable person. The term harassment is used to cover the ‘causing alarm or distress’ offences under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 as amended (PHA), and ‘putting people in fear of violence’ offences under section 4 of the PHA. (See Chapter 32 of ‘Criminal Offences Handbook’, specifically sections 32.43, 32.44, 32.56 and 32.57). Critics have long called for reform of a law that still does not recognise stalking as a distinct criminal offence. Stalking curtails a victim’s freedom, leaving them feeling that they constantly have to be careful. In many cases, the conduct might appear innocent if taken in isolation, but when carried out repeatedly so as to amount to a course of conduct, it may then cause significant alarm, harassment or distress to the victim.

In the most recent British Crime Survey, published this year, 18.7% of women and 9.3% of men said they had been stalked at some point in their lives. Experts say that half of all stalkers now use the internet to contact or target their victims. Prosecutors estimate that around 1 million people in the UK have experienced stalking. Although no figures are collated on the number of cases dealt with through the courts, there are thought to have been only a few hundred prosecutions. Introducing the new guidelines, Nazir Afzal, CPS Community Liaison Director and lead on stalking and harassment crimes, said: “Stalking is pernicious and can affect anyone regardless of their walk of life. It has a devastating impact on the lives of those who become victims”.  “Stalkers steal lives,” he said. “We as police and prosecutors haven’t taken it seriously in the past. Now we do.” He went on to say: “What we now understand more fully is that victims of stalking, just like victims of domestic violence, continue to live in fear of their stalkers despite the fact that they may have been prosecuted and imprisoned or subject to other sanctions.” The new guidance is designed to give prosecutors a better understanding of what stalking is and provide a framework to build stronger cases and to apply for more effective restraining orders.
 
Alexis Bowater, Chief Executive for the Network for Surviving Stalking (NSS), said: “As the UK charity that represents stalking victims and their families, the Network for Surviving Stalking welcomes the new CPS guidelines on stalking and their swift and comprehensive response to a real need. We hope the inclusion of cyber-stalking for the first time will encourage everyone involved to take this crime more seriously. This new guidance will go a long way to improving the lives of victims and to making sure that perpetrators are treated appropriately by the courts.”
The full text of ‘Stalking and Harassment Guidance’ can be found at:-

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/stalking_and_harassment/

Speaking last week at an event hosted by the Law Society, justice minister Jonathan Djanogly stressed the importance of alternative business structures (ABS). He said: “I believe that the changing legal landscape should lead to a reinvigorated and more competitive legal services sector. The introduction of ABS in particular will allow for greater flexibility of professional services provision and businesses better equipped to respond to commercial pressures.”

The Legal Services Act 2007 reformed the way in which legal services are regulated in England and Wales. It allows for ABS, which will enable law firms to explore new ways of organising their businesses to be more cost-effective, permit different kinds of lawyers and non-lawyers to work together, and allow for external investment. Non-legal firms such as insurance companies, banks and estate agents will have the ability to link with legal firms by forming ABS firms and offering integrated legal and other professional services. The claim is that allowing new providers into the marketplace should lead to innovation and price reductions. This should result in more people being able to access legal services. Firms that are interested in developing new business structures will need to apply to the relevant licensing authority for a licence. While there is no obligation on a firm to become an ABS, competitive pressure might influence a firm’s decision.

In just over a year the first ABS firms will open for business. An efficient business model involving a small number of qualified lawyers, overseeing many paralegals, has already taken hold in fields such as conveyancing and personal injury, where much of the work is routine and process-driven. This trend will grow as non-lawyer providers enter the market next year, and the paralegal will become of greater importance. Though in essence they are people doing legal work without a full legal qualification, a core problem is that there is no accepted definition of what a paralegal is. Many legal practices could not survive without them, but their work is often undervalued and unrecognised. Another claim for ABS is that it will be easier to hire and retain high-quality non-legal staff, and ABS firms will be able to reward non-legal staff in the same way as they reward lawyers.

The ‘Guardian’ reports that, in a first for the UK, the Law Society of Scotland, in association with the Scottish Paralegal Association (SPA), has formally launched its registered paralegal scheme, introducing across the board competencies and adherence to a code of conduct for paralegals working with solicitors. Collette Paterson, deputy director of education and training at the society, says more than 120 paralegals have already applied to the scheme, which will not only help to credit the work they do but also introduce set standards and provide a defined career path, possibly linking up in time with the route to qualifying as a solicitor. The Law Society of England and Wales is reported to be currently investigating whether there is scope for it to develop a paralegal qualification.

More details can be found at:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/abs-fact-sheet.pdf
http://www.lawscot.org.uk/paralegals/
http://www.scottish-paralegal.org.uk/

“Let’s not forget that the bankers are the next-door neighbours of the politicians. Most people can see the picture: the bankers grease the politicians’ palms, the politicians bail out the bankers with public funds, the bankers pay themselves fat bonuses and loan the money back to the public with interest. It’s essentially a crime spree that benefits a social elite at the expense of many millions of victims.”

Much of this radical rhetoric will be agreed by many people, even if all disapprove of the source and condemn utterly its actions and threats. It comes from the leaders of the extreme Real IRA in an exclusive interview with the ‘Guardian’. Remarkably, on the same day that this interview was published, that doyen of the capitalist system, the Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, came up with much the same analysis. Braving the lion’s den of the TUC conference he told delegates that bankers and policymakers were responsible for the financial crisis and admitted that the financial sector and politicians were to blame. He expressed his anger at bank bonuses and pay and declared that banks should never again be allowed to get into a state where they damage the prospect of recovery. He sympathised with delegates and the wider public at their anger at the bonus culture that still pervades the banking sector. He said: “When large bonuses are paid to people in organisations that only two years ago were bailed out by the taxpayer, it becomes somehow harder to understand.”

He placed the blame squarely on the financial sector for the economic crisis of 2008, claiming that the structure of financial sector bonuses had encouraged excessive risk-taking. He admitted that the Bank of England, along with the financial sector and other policy-makers, had let go of the steady growth, low inflation and low unemployment that was in their grasp. “We let it slip,” he told delegates. “We that is, in the financial sector, and as policy-makers – not your members, nor the businesses and organisations around the country which employ them.”

He concluded that it was vital the government set out a clear plan for reducing the deficit, adding that that it was perfectly reasonable to debate the precise speed of deficit reduction. What he did not say was that, although the acknowledged culprits are the bankers and politicians, it is not them who will pay the price. Widespread cuts will cut a swathe through public expenditure and employment. In the legal field this will include swingeing cuts in the legal aid budget, the closure of 157 courts, the loss of training contracts, and much more, all at a time when demand will be greatest. There seems to be clear evidence that the poorer sections of society will suffer disproportionately from the cuts, but it was ever thus. In the words of the old song, “it’s the rich what gets the money and the poor what gets the blame.”