*/
THE Bar Council has welcomed the announcement by the Legal Services Commission that Best Value Tendering (BVT) will not be introduced before a full evaluation has been undertaken. This follows months of vocal opposition from the Bar Council, the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) and the Law Society against the LSC’s proposals. Having reviewed the submissions to its consultation issued in March, the LSC has recognised in its response published yesterday that the timetable for undertaking pilot schemes was too fast and would give insufficient time for a proper evaluation. Under revised arrangements, pilot schemes will operate for twelve to eighteen months before they are reviewed, with a proposed publication date for the review of August 2012 and no further implementation before 2013. The Bar is also pleased to see the LSC’s commitment to undertake a full review of the pilots before deciding whether there should be any further implementation.
Despite yesterday’s announcement, the Bar remains concerned about the concept of BVT which the LSC’s response document does not address. The Bar says the LSC has failed to make the economic case for the introduction of BVT. It remains very concerned that the disruption to the provider base will outweigh any intended savings. The Bar remains extremely concerned about the absence of plans to a carry out a full impact assessment on BME and women practitioners during the pilots, since the expected adverse effects of the scheme will impact on these groups disproportionately.
Commenting on the LSC’s response, Desmond Browne QC, Chairman of the Bar, said:
“Even though the LSC has decided to proceed with the pilot in Avon and Somerset and Greater Manchester, it is welcome news that the Commission has heeded the pleas of the Bar Council and the Law Society and decided not to roll out BVT more widely until 2013. We remain concerned that the LSC has not addressed our concerns about the discriminatory impact of their proposals on women and BME practitioners. In their original paper the LSC acknowledged the discriminatory nature of their proposals. Regrettably, what they now propose does not begin to redress that effect.
Finally, it is clearer than ever that this is not Best Value Tendering but what the Commission used to call price competitive tendering. Provided that practitioners meet a low entry threshold of quality, the tendering process will make no attempt to assess the quality of the service they offer.”
Commenting on the LSC’s response, Desmond Browne QC, Chairman of the Bar, said:
“Even though the LSC has decided to proceed with the pilot in Avon and Somerset and Greater Manchester, it is welcome news that the Commission has heeded the pleas of the Bar Council and the Law Society and decided not to roll out BVT more widely until 2013. We remain concerned that the LSC has not addressed our concerns about the discriminatory impact of their proposals on women and BME practitioners. In their original paper the LSC acknowledged the discriminatory nature of their proposals. Regrettably, what they now propose does not begin to redress that effect.
Finally, it is clearer than ever that this is not Best Value Tendering but what the Commission used to call price competitive tendering. Provided that practitioners meet a low entry threshold of quality, the tendering process will make no attempt to assess the quality of the service they offer.”
THE Bar Council has welcomed the announcement by the Legal Services Commission that Best Value Tendering (BVT) will not be introduced before a full evaluation has been undertaken. This follows months of vocal opposition from the Bar Council, the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) and the Law Society against the LSC’s proposals. Having reviewed the submissions to its consultation issued in March, the LSC has recognised in its response published yesterday that the timetable for undertaking pilot schemes was too fast and would give insufficient time for a proper evaluation. Under revised arrangements, pilot schemes will operate for twelve to eighteen months before they are reviewed, with a proposed publication date for the review of August 2012 and no further implementation before 2013. The Bar is also pleased to see the LSC’s commitment to undertake a full review of the pilots before deciding whether there should be any further implementation.
Despite yesterday’s announcement, the Bar remains concerned about the concept of BVT which the LSC’s response document does not address. The Bar says the LSC has failed to make the economic case for the introduction of BVT. It remains very concerned that the disruption to the provider base will outweigh any intended savings. The Bar remains extremely concerned about the absence of plans to a carry out a full impact assessment on BME and women practitioners during the pilots, since the expected adverse effects of the scheme will impact on these groups disproportionately.
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
Giovanni D’Avola explores the issue of over-citation of unreported cases and the ‘added value’ elements of a law report
Louise Crush explores the key points and opportunities for tax efficiency
Westgate Wealth Management Ltd is a Partner Practice of FTSE 100 company St. James’s Place – one of the top UK Wealth Management firms. We offer a holistic service of distinct quality, integrity, and excellence with the aim to build a professional and valuable relationship with our clients, helping to provide them with security now, prosperity in the future and the highest standard of service in all of our dealings.
Is now the time to review your financial position, having reached a career milestone? asks Louise Crush
If you were to host a dinner party with 10 guests, and you asked them to explain what financial planning is and how it differs to financial advice, you’d receive 10 different answers. The variety of answers highlights the ongoing need to clarify and promote the value of financial planning.
Most of us like to think we would risk our career in order to meet our ethical obligations, so why have so many lawyers failed to hold the line? asks Flora Page
If your current practice environment is bringing you down, seek a new one. However daunting the change, it will be worth it, says Anon Barrister
Creating advocacy opportunities for juniors is now the expectation but not always easy to put into effect. Tom Mitcheson KC distils developing best practice from the Patents Court initiative already bearing fruit
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
The long-running fee-paid judicial pensions saga continues. The current cut-off date for giving notice of election to join FPJPS is 31 March 2024, and that date now gives rise to a serious problem, warns HH John Platt
