-
some years ago (5ish?) the government was intent on slashing for good the legal aid budget - they wanted to put out for tender a few, massive contracts for legal aid on a bidding system...think G4S or Serco Law...even Eddie Stobbart expressed an interest ffs..
The idea would be that these huge firms could bid low for the contracts but make money by the sheer volume of work. The smaller, traditional solicitors firms would go out of business overnight as their legal aid contracts would not be renewed and the criminal bar would be destroyed as an independent profession because the likes of G4S and Serco etc would keep the advocacy in house.
Quality wise it would be a race to the bottom - the low bids for the contract only make business sense if you keep costs down - the government's plan was to introduce a Quality Scheme for Advocates so that they could say that the criminal justice system was in good hands as it was all quality assured.
That plan was defeated thankfully but there has remained a mutual distrust between the independent bar and the govt. Many people do, apparently, genuinely feel that there is no need for the tax payer to pay for the rolls royce service the independent bar offers.
many people do recognise its value, and despite the rambunctiousness up thread, I am genuinely pleased, and surprised, at the value people place on the role. but the difficult question remains what it should cost.
You are reading a single comment by @carson and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
carson
It appeared to be that the public would not countenance paying a barrister to defend someone via legal aid, and that it would be more acceptable to substitute a nurse for the consultant (as it were), which would have the happy benefit of making the majority of defendants plead guilty when they realised they'd be getting the less qualified option.
Now I honestly have no idea.