By Paul Nettleton | 2 July 2013
Justice Secretary Chris Grayling has backtracked on plans to remove the choice of solicitor from defendants on legal aid. The move was expected to cut the £220m from the legal aid bill as part of cost-saving reforms.
However, Grayling has insisted that in bowing to substantial opposition from barristers and solicitors – and from within his own party – he will still be demanding the savings set out in his consultation paper, Transforming legal aid: delivering a more credible and efficient system.
Grayling, who is also lord chancellor, signalled his climbdown in a letter to Sir Alan Beith, chair of the Commons justice select committee, before which he is due to appear on Wednesday.
He wrote: ‘One specific point in the consultation which has attracted significant response is the proposal to remove client choice in the model for competition for criminal litigation.
'The rationale for proposing this change was to give greater certainty of case volume for providers, making it easier and more predictable for them to organise their businesses to provide the most cost-effective service to the taxpayer – it is not a policy objective in its own right.
‘However, I have heard clearly from the Law Society and other respondents that they regard client choice as fundamental to the effective delivery of criminal legal aid. I am therefore looking again at this issue, and expect to make changes to allow a choice of solicitor for clients receiving criminal legal aid.’
But he added: ‘The terms of the ministry’s spending settlement means that all parts of the budget need to deliver savings.’
Law Society president Lucy Scott-Moncrieff welcomed Grayling’s announcement. She said: ‘Our meeting with the lord chancellor last week demonstrated the benefits of constructive, though robust, engagement. By listening to us on client choice, the government has shown it is serious about constructive engagement, which I welcome.
‘Client choice of solicitor is a fundamental component of a fair justice system and a driver of quality in provision of legal advice.’
Scott-Moncrieff added that the Law Society had 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’.
This was the least worst solution, she said, and ‘a million miles away from the unworkable approach initially proposed by government’.
The Bar Council had also opposed Grayling’s proposal. Maura McGowan QC, chair of the Bar, said: ‘Retaining client choice in legal aid would represent a significant victory for the broad coalition which has been pressing the government to think again about some of its proposals. 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.’
