Legal Opinion: Ministers told to rethink dangerous legal aid reforms

Some of the most vulnerable people in society face exclusion from a key part of the welfare state if government plans to change legal aid go ahead, the Constitutional Affairs Committee warned yesterday. Under the proposals, drawn up by Lord Carter of Coles, the Government intends to introduce competitive tendering for legal aid work to make savings to the overall budget. But the committee says the move to competitive tendering among firms for legal aid contracts must be properly piloted be- fore it is implemented, and calls on the Government to scrap the "transitional period" of fixed fees.

Alan Beith MP, Chairman of the Committee, said:

This is about people's access to advice and to justice, which could be irreversibly damaged if these reforms have the negative effects described in evidence to the Committee. It is important that experienced professionals are prepared to stay in the field providing legal aid services for the most vulnerable members of society, such as individuals with mental health problems or children.

The MPs' concerns echo those made but lawyers and some charities working in the social welfare sector.

Solicitors' leaders said the Government could not afford to ignore the latest "damning report" on reform of the legal aid system. Des Hudson, Chief Executive of the Law Society, said the report backs up the Law Society's concerns that the Government hasn't thought through the plans.

The findings of this group of cross-party MPs is a damning indictment of the Government's ill-thought out and disastrous reforms. The Government cannot possibly ignore this evidence from a committee with a majority of Government members, which highlights the risks these proposals pose to the most vulnerable in society.

The committee of MPs also noted that there had been a "catastrophic deterioration" in relations between practitioners, their representative organisations and the LSC. "The Law Society has asked on numerous occasions for the establishment of a proper negotiation process but our concerns have been ignored", said Mr Hudson.

The Law Society, which launched its "What Price Justice" campaign in November, is backed by campaign partners including Mind, Shelter, NSPCC and the Refugee Council in the fight to get adequate legal representation for those who are most in need of it.

Barristers have also raised less vociferously their own misgivings about the plans. Geoffrey Vos QC, the Chairman of the Bar, commenting on the report, said:

The Select Committee's conclusions, which echo the concerns of the Bar Council in many key respects, will need to be considered carefully by the Government, and by the Legal Services Commission in particular. The Government needs to take the committee's concerns seriously, and to address them urgently.

The Government counters that the reforms will "drive efficiencies, ensuring even more needy people will get advice and representation at public expense." But the MPs said they were especially worried about the impact on black and minority ethnic firms. Last week the Society of Asian Lawyers and the Black Solicitors Network jointly launched proceedings against the Government on the grounds that it has not been carried out a full racial impact assessment of the reform proposals.

r.verkaik@independent.co.uk