*/
Statutory instruments introducing the legal aid pay cuts have been roundly criticised by the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
As “a matter of important policy” and on the ground that they may “imperfectly achieve their policy objectives”, the special attention of the House has been drawn to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) Regulations 2013, the Criminal Defence Service (Very High Cost Cases) (Funding) Order 2013 and the Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) Regulations 2013.
The House was urged to press the Ministry of Justice for a “more robust argument to support its assertions that the instruments will not have an impact on the administration of justice”.
The Scrutiny Committee, which examines the policy merits of legislation laid before the House of Lords subject to Parliamentary procedure, reviewed the SIs in the light of the strong objections registered by the Bar Council, Bar Standards Board and Criminal Bar Association.
“Although the MoJ’s stated objective is to make savings of £20 million a year from these changes,” the Committee’s 18th Report of Session read, “the potential unintended consequences set out in the correspondence indicate that this may not be realised at least in the transitional phase, if cases are dropped and have to start from scratch with another advocate.
“The profession’s objection to fee rates being set outside the contract and, therefore, subject to change without the right to re-negotiation may also have a significant impact on the supply of suitably qualified advocates.”
On the civil regulations, the Committee recommended that the House should request a “more complete explanation” of the way the fee scheme will work in practice, noting insufficient information in the explanatory memorandum (20th Report of Session).
Maura McGowan QC, Chairman of the Bar, urged Parliamentarians to agree with the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee and to press for a “much-needed debate” to evaluate the significance of these changes. This “poorly drafted legislation” would “damage access to justice” and “threaten the continued viability of practice of many publicly funded barristers,” she said.
A prayer to annul the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) Regulations 2013, laid by Lord Carlile of Berriew, was due to be debated in the House of Lords as Counsel went to press. The regulations would be annulled if the prayer motion is agreed by the House within 40 days of the statutory instrument being laid. McGowan wrote to all peers to emphasise the importance of the debate to the Bar.
As “a matter of important policy” and on the ground that they may “imperfectly achieve their policy objectives”, the special attention of the House has been drawn to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) Regulations 2013, the Criminal Defence Service (Very High Cost Cases) (Funding) Order 2013 and the Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) Regulations 2013.
The House was urged to press the Ministry of Justice for a “more robust argument to support its assertions that the instruments will not have an impact on the administration of justice”.
The Scrutiny Committee, which examines the policy merits of legislation laid before the House of Lords subject to Parliamentary procedure, reviewed the SIs in the light of the strong objections registered by the Bar Council, Bar Standards Board and Criminal Bar Association.
“Although the MoJ’s stated objective is to make savings of £20 million a year from these changes,” the Committee’s 18th Report of Session read, “the potential unintended consequences set out in the correspondence indicate that this may not be realised at least in the transitional phase, if cases are dropped and have to start from scratch with another advocate.
“The profession’s objection to fee rates being set outside the contract and, therefore, subject to change without the right to re-negotiation may also have a significant impact on the supply of suitably qualified advocates.”
On the civil regulations, the Committee recommended that the House should request a “more complete explanation” of the way the fee scheme will work in practice, noting insufficient information in the explanatory memorandum (20th Report of Session).
Maura McGowan QC, Chairman of the Bar, urged Parliamentarians to agree with the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee and to press for a “much-needed debate” to evaluate the significance of these changes. This “poorly drafted legislation” would “damage access to justice” and “threaten the continued viability of practice of many publicly funded barristers,” she said.
A prayer to annul the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) Regulations 2013, laid by Lord Carlile of Berriew, was due to be debated in the House of Lords as Counsel went to press. The regulations would be annulled if the prayer motion is agreed by the House within 40 days of the statutory instrument being laid. McGowan wrote to all peers to emphasise the importance of the debate to the Bar.
Statutory instruments introducing the legal aid pay cuts have been roundly criticised by the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
Chair of the Bar reflects on 2025
Q&A with criminal barrister Nick Murphy, who moved to New Park Court Chambers on the North Eastern Circuit in search of a better work-life balance
Revolt Cycling in Holborn, London’s first sustainable fitness studio, invites barristers to join the revolution – turning pedal power into clean energy
Rachel Davenport, Co-founder and Director at AlphaBiolabs, reflects on how the company’s Giving Back ethos continues to make a difference to communities across the UK
By Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
AlphaBiolabs has made a £500 donation to Sean’s Place, a men’s mental health charity based in Sefton, as part of its ongoing Giving Back initiative
Little has changed since Burns v Burns . Cohabiting couples deserve better than to be left on the blasted heath with the existing witch’s brew for another four decades, argues Christopher Stirling
Six months of court observation at the Old Bailey: APPEAL’s Dr Nisha Waller and Tehreem Sultan report their findings on prosecution practices under joint enterprise
Despite its prevalence, autism spectrum disorder remains poorly understood in the criminal justice system. Does Alex Henry’s joint enterprise conviction expose the need to audit prisons? asks Dr Felicity Gerry KC
With automation now deeply embedded in the Department for Work Pensions, Alexander McColl and Alexa Thompson review what we know, what we don’t and avenues for legal challenge
Why were some Caribbean nations given such dramatically different constitutional frameworks when they gained independence from the UK? Dr Leonardo Raznovich examines the controversial savings clause
