Yesterday, in a move which surprised no one but disappointed many, it was announced that the savage cuts heralded in a consultation launched last August and euphemistically called "Legal Aid: Funding Reforms" would be implemented without delay.
Today it was announced that the Legal Services Commission's (LSC) imminent launch of its best value tendering (BVT) contracts for Manchester and Avon and Somerset are to be scrapped; a step which surprised many (including it is thought the LSC itself) and pleased even more.
The cuts are a direct reduction in the pay to out of hours legal aid lawyers who are already amongst the lowest paid public sector workers where salaries are often below those of teachers and nurses.
Speaking today Paul Harris, President of the London Criminal Courts Solicitors' Association said:
"Without understanding or a care about the consequences for those paying the price, a 5% cut in payment is simply aiming at a target which politicians have ceased to value: access to justice for ordinary people who, often innocently or inadvertently, find themselves in trouble with the law".
"The payment levels have been put back to the same cash level as 1994. Perhaps ministers and senior civil servants will voluntarily take a similar cut and share the pain".
These policy announcements would normally have been made by the LSC which has the statutory responsibility for legal aid delivery and a great deal of time and large sums of public money have been spent working up the new BVT process.
Mike Jones, Chair of the Criminal Law Solicitors' Association reacted to the BVT announcement
"The only people who thought this BVT scheme to be a good idea were the LSC. Not only is it an unsuitable method for providing legal services of this type but everyone, including the House of Commons Select Committee agreed that it was a leap in the dark.
" At least the risk has now been identified by the Ministry. It's just a shame they had to wait until the eleventh hour to react. So much anxiety and worry over business closures and job losses could have been averted".
Two questions remain: is the government intent on destroying the provision of legal aid and what is the point of the LSC?
Ends