3 The Legal Services Commission's
skills and capacity to manage change
16. The Commission had experienced a number of
significant structural changes, which had been intended to make
it a more efficient organisation.[33]
One result of ongoing change had been the departure of several
members of the senior management team in recent years, and the
use of several interim members of senior management.[34]
17. We were concerned at the cost and disruption
of these changes in senior management, which had cost the public
purse £1.5 million in additional payments including those
made for pensions and redundancy.[35]
Despite plans to implement significant reforms, one departure
from the Commission's senior management had been its Director
for Transformation, which the Committee suggested was an area
of expertise which the Commission clearly needed.[36]
18. The Department and Commission had followed
a programme of reforms to the procurement of legal aid set out
in 2006 by Lord Carter, who envisaged a fundamental shift to a
market-based system for legal aid suppliers, beginning with measures
such as fixed fees for work at police stations. The Department
said that implementation of these reforms to date had resulted
in savings of more than the £100 million envisaged by Lord
Carter.[37] However,
we found that they had often been poorly planned and that the
Commission had often not conducted post-implementation reviews
on the effects of the reforms. The Commission accepted the need
to build the time for effective reviews into future projects.[38]
19. The ultimate goal of Lord Carter's reforms
was the introduction of a system of Best Value Tendering for criminal
legal aid. The Commission believed that introducing competition
would resolve the issue of variations in profits and would encourage
firms to innovate to reduce their costs.[39]
The Committee noted the delay that had occurred in implementing
Best Value Tendering prior to the Department's decision not to
proceed with the scheme.[40]
20. Even before the abandonment of Best Value
Tendering, we found that the Commission was likely to need to
make further savings in its legal aid budget, but at the time
of the hearing did not know where these could come from. Neither
the Department nor the Commission could confirm whether reduced
spending would result in reduced incomes for legal aid firms and
barristers.[41]
33 Q 27 Back
34
Qq 25-28 Back
35
Ev 17 Back
36
Q 29 Back
37
Qq 65 and 66; C&AG's Report, The Procurement of Criminal
Legal Aid in England and Wales by the Legal Services Commission,
para 1.9 Back
38
Q 67 Back
39
Qq 63 and 64 Back
40
Ev 28 Back
41
Qq 105-113 Back
| 
