Justice Secretary Chris Grayling in U-turn: Defendants on legal aid will still be able to choose their solicitor
Andrew Grice has been Political Editor of The Independent since 1998. He was previously Political Editor of The Sunday Times, where he worked for 10 years, and he has been a Westminster-based journalist since 1982. His column, Inside Politics, appears in The Independent each Saturday.
Monday 01 July 2013
Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary, made a surprise U-turn on Monday night over his controversial plan to deny defendants on legal aid the right to choose their solicitor.
After the proposal ran into widespread opposition from the legal profession, he dropped this key plank changes designed to shave £220m a year from the legal aid budget. The announcement came as he prepared for a grilling on the proposals by the Commons Justice Select Committee on Wednesday.
It is believed Mr Grayling was influenced by strong criticism of his plan in a Commons debate last Thursday by Tory MPs, who argued that the state choosing a defendant’s lawyer would be un-Conservative. The critics included David Davis, the former shadow Home Secretary. Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General, and Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, also hinted that they had doubts about the shake-up.
Allies insisted that Mr Grayling had been planning a rethink for some time and had always been flexible about how his plans to bring competitive tendering for legal aid contracts is implemented. They said “client choice” had never been a specific objective, only one possible option.
His climbdown will not affect the scale of his budget cuts but will safeguard a long-standing tradition in criminal trials. Both barristers and solicitors argued that a defendant's ability to choose a solicitor is the best way to preserve high-quality representation.
Mr Grayling, who acknowledged that he had failed to carry the legal profession with him, said on Monday night: “Removing the choice of solicitor for clients receiving criminal legal aid was only proposed in order to guarantee lawyers had enough business to make contracts viable. It is clear the profession regards client choice as important and so I expect to make changes that allow a choice of solicitor in the future. Any future scheme for criminal legal aid must guarantee that quality legal advice and representation is available, but we still need to make significant savings.”
The Justice Secretary welcomed the Law Society’s recognition of the need for savings and said the Government was discussing with it how to achieve “a managed market consolidation” .
As recently as last month, Mr Grayling argued: “I don't believe that most people who find themselves in our criminal justice system are great connoisseurs of legal skills. We know the people in our prisons and who come into our courts often come from the most difficult and challenged backgrounds."
Sadiq Khan, the shadow Justice Secretary, described Mr Grayling’s move as “a humiliating climbdown.” He said: “The Government's half-baked legal aid plans are starting to unravel. If we are to maintain the integrity of our criminal justice system, avoid needless miscarriages of justice and bring about the efficiencies our justice system needs, the government must urgently dump their proposals for legal aid and work with us, victims' groups and other experts to bring about changes that will save money and improve our justice system."
Lucy Scott-Moncrieff, president of the Law Society, welcomed the announcement. She said: "We have composed a properly evidenced and considered alternative approach, which would shelve price-led competitive tendering, retain the important principle of clients being able to choose their solicitor and in doing so, maintain strong incentives for sufficient quantity and high quality of legal advice and representation. I won't pretend that our alternative, if adopted, will result in flags waving in every solicitor firm – it is in many respects the least worse solution."
Maura McGowan QC, chairman of the Bar, said: "We welcome the Government's change of heart on this, but we hope it is also listening to the many voices which are clear that price competitive tendering in any form is not a suitable mechanism for allocating legal aid contracts. Legal aid contracts should not just go to the bidders who are willing to do the work for the lowest price."
Diving in at the deep end is no excuse for shirking the style stakes
- 2 PornHub begs users to stop uploading video clips of Brazil getting beaten 7-1
- 3 Why I'm on the brink of burning my Israeli passport
- 4 L'Oreal cuts ties with Belgium supporter Axelle Despiegelaere after hunting trip photographs
- 5 The true Gaza back-story that the Israelis aren’t telling this week
Instagram of US airport security chiefs: Lipstick knives and IED training kits among items seized
Game of Thrones author George RR Martin says 'f*** you' to fans who fear he will die before finishing Westeros saga
Loom bands: Bids for dress made from colourful rubber reach almost £154,000 on eBay
Israel-Gaza crisis: Eight killed in Gaza Strip cafe while watching World Cup semi-final
Supermoon 2014: When and why will the moon look bigger and brighter this summer?
Sustained immigration has not harmed Britons' employment, say government advisers
Australia facing international condemnation after turning around Sri Lankans at sea
7/7 memorial defaced on anniversary of 2005 attacks with ‘Blair lied thousands died’ graffiti
Even when it brutalises one of its own teenage citizens, America is helpless against Israel
Socialist Worker called to apologise over ‘vile’ article saying Eton schoolboy Horatio Chapple's death is ‘reason to save the polar bears’
There’s a nasty smell in the political air – and it’s coming from the Tories
£50000 - £70000 per annum: Harrington Starr: Business Analyst Consultant (Fina...
competitive: Progressive Recruitment: My client, a FTSE 100 organisation are u...
£300 - £350 per day + competitive: Orgtel: My client, a leading bank, is curre...