Reform of Legal Aid in England and Wales: the Government Response Part 45
Posted by admin
This is Part 45 of the government response to Reform of Legal Aid in England and Wales. Please read the other parts for a full picture. Used under the terms of the Open Government Licence http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/consultations/legal-aid-reform-government-response.pdf.
262 Reform of Legal Aid in England and Wales Government Response
C. Efficiency improvement proposals
(i) Judicial system efficiency
50. A number of respondents argued that a more efficient court system would
bring savings for legal aid. These relate to improving efficiency in the
management and progression of cases, rather than reducing the volume
of cases. Proposals included:
– a full review of civil procedure, especially in low value cases;
– training and encouraging judges to use modern case management
procedures, improving listing systems, and in general having
stronger case management in family cases and improving case
management in clinical negligence cases;
– implementing Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations for clinical
negligence claims as set out at Chapter 23 of his report;
– ticketing judges so that judges with the appropriate expertise hear
cases;
– the proposals about simplifying legislation could also generate
efficiencies in cases which arise (in addition to reducing the volume
of cases, as mentioned above);
– hearing more cases in magistrates’ courts rather than the Crown
Court;
– considering the comparative costs and efficiency of lay and
professional judges;
– investing in IT within the court system including to reduce physical
attendance and to use more e-communication;
– means testing systems as applied to Crown Court cases should
themselves not be excessively costly to operate;
– introduce twin track private law cases;
– use one joint expert for forensic accounts not multiple experts;
– review the use of associate prosecutors to ensure that any CPS
budget savings are not at the expense of wider court service and
legal aid costs;
– altering committal hearings so that defendants confirm their initial
plea, legislating for Goodyear intentions and otherwise encouraging
early guilty pleas.
The Government response
51. The Government agrees that delays in the court system can contribute to
increased legal aid costs, and we are already working on efficiency
programmes to simplify, streamline and modernise procedures. The
Criminal Justice System (CJS) efficiency programme is being developed
collaboratively with all of the criminal justice agencies and is focused on
263 Reform of Legal Aid in England and Wales Government Response
system-wide inefficiency, to deliver a more efficient and cost-effective
system. The MoJ is also in the process of consulting on a range of civil
justice transformation proposals which are also designed to improve
efficiency in civil courts.
52. The MoJ’s existing spending plans already assume savings in the costs
of the justice system, including through a reduction in capacity and also in
improved efficiency. For example, the Government announced on 14
December 2010 its plans for courts modernisation.
80
The efficiency
proposals outlined above could therefore only represent an alternative to
the legal aid savings if they delivered savings beyond our existing plans.
Our efficiency programme is designed to complement legal aid reform,
rather than as an alternative to it, minimising waste and ensuring users
and the taxpayer secure best value for money.
53. Several of Lord Justice Jackson’s proposals for improvements in the
handling of clinical negligence claims, mentioned in particular by the Bar
Council in their response, have already been implemented. These
include: increase in time for defendants to respond to the protocol letter of
claim; NHLSA now routinely obtains independent expert reports to assess
liability for claims; defendant bodies have nominated a senior officer to
receive complaints about defendant lawyers failing to address the issues.
The judiciary are taking forward a project to harmonise case management
directions in clinical negligence and other types of claim. The Ministry of
Justice is discussing with the judiciary the development of a costs
budgeting pilot for clinical negligence claims. There are already statutory
time limits for health bodies to provide medical records on request. Where
a health body fails to comply with the statutory time limits for providing
medical records on request a complaint should be made to the health
body. If a complaint is not resolved satisfactorily, a complaint can be
made to the Information Commissioner who can investigate and serve a
decision notice, which can include a financial penalty.
54. In addition the Government is currently consulting on whether the
principles of the Road Traffic Accident scheme could be extended to
cover low value clinical negligence claims including claims against nonNHS bodies. This is wider than the scheme proposed by the NHS
Redress Act. The Government will consider responses and publish
proposals in due course.
55. The Law Society, in its proposal for dealing with either way cases in the
magistrates’ courts, did not specify how the change would be achieved.
The Government agrees that there is scope for the magistrates’ courts to
handle more of these cases, and our plans to reform criminal fees reflect
concerns that the current system of fees does not sufficiently support the
aim of speedy and efficient justice and may discourage early resolution of
80
See: http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/newsrelease141210a.htm
264 Reform of Legal Aid in England and Wales Government Response
cases (see Annex G). It is, however, a longstanding and important
principle of criminal justice that the defendant has a right to a trial before
a jury, and we have no plans to restrict this.
(ii) Rationalising legal aid services
56. It has been suggested that the Public Defender Service (PDS) could be
scrapped, that the Criminal Defence Service (CDS) Direct telephone
service could be abolished with the work passed to local solicitors and
that the Defence Solicitor Call Centre (DSCC) which allocates solicitors
could be replaced with alternative local arrangements.
The Government response
57. The Government believes that the PDS provides an important safety net
in areas where the supply of providers is low, and insures against future
disruption to supply in the event that providers decide to leave the market.
58. CDS Direct offers a proven high quality, cost effective service, notably
one that requires a higher level of performance in relation to peer review
than is required of standard crime contract holders. The DSCC performs
a number of key functions for the LSC. As well as providing national
coverage through a single contractor, data provided by the DSCC assists
the LSC in exercising proper financial control over police station
expenditure, and is also best placed to provide the administrative
flexibility required as we move towards competition.
59. For these reasons, we do not agree that PDS, CDS Direct or the DSCC
should be abolished as an alternative saving for the legal aid.
(iii) Reducing fees
60. A number of proposals were made in relation to fees and costs. These
included introducing a single fee for both litigation and advocacy, and also
for family cases, aligning Queen’s Counsel fees at the level of leading
junior fees, other changes affecting Very High Cost Cases (VHCCs) and
Quinn’s Counsel rates, capping fees paid to individual fee earners to
£250,000 per year, and reducing solicitor fees further and introducing
more fee alignment.
The Government response
61. The Government sought views on a series of similar proposals on fees,
including introducing a single fee, the appointment of QCs and for VHCC
cases. The Governments plans are set out in Annexes G (criminal) and H
(civil and family). The question of whether to introduce a single fee in
criminal matters will be considered as part of the consultation on
introducing competition in criminal fees, which will be published later
this year.
62. We have separately considered the proposal to cap fees paid to
individuals to £250,000. We believe that there are some practical
265 Reform of Legal Aid in England and Wales Government Response
difficulties in implementing this proposal. For example, it would be difficult
to stop payments and/or work, if this threshold were met part way through
a case. However, even if the practical difficulties could be overcome, we
do not believe the proposal would save money. It would simply distribute
existing work, and therefore payments, across a wider group of providers
without achieving any greater efficiency or effectiveness.
(iv) Reducing administrative costs
63. Narrower proposals included rationalising hourly rates to make it easier to
identify the relevant fee, streamlining contractual requirements and
streamlining accreditation schemes so that they are pitched at the correct
level to ensure quality and avoid duplication, and being more tolerant
towards unintentional non-compliance. Wider proposals included moving
towards a much more decentralised model of legal fund administration,
with local bodies more involved in fund allocation and with more flexibility
and choice offered to providers in relation to taking on an running cases.
The Government response
64. The consultation sought views on the administration scheme, and the
LSC’s plans to take these forward are set out at paragraphs 273 to 275 of
section 3: the programme of reform.
Leave a Reply