My Proposal

In the light of the PCT proposals which have been subject to a robust impact analysis (can you feel the irony jumping out of the internet and giving you a big sloppy kiss?), I have decided to conduct a social experiment with the Little Darlings. This will, I trust, provide empirical evidence for the Ministry of (dwindling) Justice if they decide to contemplate the consequences of PCT before imposing it on us.

This weekend, when it comes to doling out the household assignments (in return for paper folding currency) I shall abandon my tried and tested method of assigning tasks on the basis of aptitude, experience and enthusiasm, in favour of price competitive tendering. Twin One generally elects to do the Saturday morning Tesco run for the egg and bacon brunch. She likes spending other people’s money, is motivated to attend to the task in good time since she loves a bacon butty, and can simultaneously listen to pop music on her iPod without me screeching at her to “turn it down”. Twin Two prefers less strenuous tasks. She likes washing up. Well that is overstating the case - If she wants money she would prefer to stand still with her hands in hot water, achieving very little over an overly long period of time (shall we call her the CPS?). Boychild’s preferred little earner is to take the rubbish bags out to the back gate. This was his father’s job, and he seems to feel some pride in a man-of-the-house activity. In any event, the Little Darlings are fairly content with this arrangement, and generally carry out their obligations to the household with little complaint.

This weekend however I am introducing competition in order to make savings to my purse of at least 17.5% whilst simultaneously encouraging productivity and sustainability. I am going to ensure that the tasks are carried out to the same standard enjoyed under the previous system: I will scrutinise their every move and carry a big stick whilst doing so. Or perhaps I will employ a child minder to do this for me, and deduct his or her wages from the Little Darling’s money. I normally give them a fiver each, and Twin One gets to keep the change from the shopping on account of, shall we call it – travelling expenses. Some parents may think that I am rewarding them handsomely for fairly straightforward tasks they are familiar with. I can afford it (at present) and it seems to me fair when one takes into account the cost of sweets, music and game downloads and sundry merchandise.

I’m not going to tell them about my plan until it’s too late for them to come up with a reasoned objection, alternative proposal, or to stop bickering for long enough to unite against me. They will each be required, if they wish to continue to receive funds, to make an offer for the task they wish to perform. They will need to be prepared to do their jobs for at least 17.5 % less than they are currently receiving, and if one or all of them would like to earn more (on an economy of so called scale), they must ensure that their bid undercuts their sibling’s best offer. And the supplement for the Tesco run will no longer be available.

I am confident that the outcome of this experiment will be that they decide that it’s just not worth their while. There is a remote possibility that they will give the new system a go because some money is better than no money. Since they will be remunerated significantly less, I doubt very much that they will put a great deal of effort into it.  It seems more likely to me that, while the Little Darlings will consider the good these small deeds do for the household, they will conclude that if you can’t even afford a bar of chocolate and Taylor Swift’s latest download, well, what’s the point.

Of course, pretty soon we'll all starve - if the rats don't eat us first - but the important thing is that the public (i.e. my) purse will look reassuringly full.
 

www.epetitions.gov.uk/petitions/46828

I have read with interest numerous blog posts since the so called “consultation” on PCT was unveiled prematurely and ill advisedly. I wholeheartedly agree with the ponderings of fellow professionals in the criminal justice system. The only feature of the call to arms that I depart from to some extent is the ethos that we must emphasise the cost to justice and the public, and ignore the very real consequences in the personal lives of so very many solicitors and barristers. When cuts have been made in the NHS and to benefits for the elderly and disabled, the human cost in the quality (or otherwise) of the lives of those affected is at the forefront of the opposition. 

This is of course quite right. I feel utter horror at the implications for those on the wrong side of the criminal justice system, and what will amount to the end of justice being even seen to be done, let alone actually being done. I have read many perfectly reasoned, researched and argued pieces about this monumental issue, and I therefore leave well alone. I don’t believe that I can reasonably add anything of significance.

I do want to emphasise that solicitors and barristers have been practicing in this field have continued to do so  not because we are self-interested money grabbing bastards.. It is a vocation on the same level, I believe as teaching, nursing and caring and the like. It is unfortunate that all solicitors and barristers are thought of as swimming in the same pond. We in the criminal justice system who probably earn less than the average primary school teacher (I know I do right now) are being judged by the same standards as partners of international commercial law firms that are doing very well, thank you nicely.

I’m not ashamed of saying that my first reaction at reading the PCT document was “fuck – I’m going to lose my ability to earn a living and support my three children, doing a job I’ve been doing for the last seventeen years, which I mostly enjoy, and frankly am really pretty good at.” The implications for the justice system as a whole and what it means for the country were secondary. But there you are, I’m just a self-interested bar steward in the eyes of the Daily Fail reading public.

It is possible to be motivated by more than one concern, but  that solicitors and barristers are neglecting to point out the personal devastation that will be a consequence of PCT. We are not the lawyers living in country estates or penthouse apartments. We – well I – will be casting our burdens on the state. I can only speak for myself, but I’ve had a gutsful of trying to defend the work that I do in defending the most vulnerable in society, and earning just about enough to pay the mortgage and take care of my little darlings.

I guess I picked another bad day to give up drinking

I appear to have mislaid my sense of humour and I doubt very much that I will rediscover it for some time, if ever. If this post raises the most wry of smiles my amazement will be second only to my current sense of utter despair. The joy of the news of the demise of Thatcher has now passed. I shall rejoice no more. Well perhaps a little on the day of that funeral.

I spent this morning reading the Criminal Legal Aid Best Value Tendering "consultation" document. I should have known better and heeded one of my partner's advice to, instead, stick my head firmly in the sand, or if none is available, up the anus of the nearest Tory politician since I'm depressed enough already. The document brought to mind the last time that BVT was mooted in 2009, I think, and the President of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association put the British criminal justice system on ebay with a reserve of £1. Honestly he did. Perhaps this inspired our incumbent Government to invite bids from criminal law practitioners to enter into a similar auction - "I'll raise you a police station interview for your two committals for sentence."

There has been no increase in legal aid rates for criminal defence work for the last fifteen years, and there have been significant cuts. Nevertheless the government expect us to pitch our bids at at least 17.5% below the current fees. This is, apparently, to ensure that criminal defence work is sustainable. I'm not sure our bank manager would agree.

I read and re-read the section on the number of contracts that we will be in a position to bid for. Then I rang a colleague who I knew had also read the document in the hope that I had misunderstood these provisions. There are currently 1600 providers of criminal defence services in England and Wales. The number of contracts that will be awarded to those that can afford to stoop to even lower profitability is 400. I hadn't misread it. In Manchester there are currently 137 providers, and this will be reduced to 37. In Devon and Cornwall, my area of practice, 10 contracts will be handed out. In Exeter alone there are currently 6 providers. 

The document also encourages bids from organisations outside of the legal profession who can then subcontract the work to "real" solicitors. If we weren't such a hated profession I suspect that Tesco would put in a bid. Actually, I can see the advert: "Nicked? Every Little Helps. And it will be little help since there will be no incentive to do a good job for a client when a good reputation means absolutely nothing. It seems to me that the only possible way that most criminal defence solicitors can stay in business is to merge with other firms. This is laughable. In my firm there are four partners, and it took us at least three hours to agree on the colour of our logo. The sorry fact of the matter is that we appear to thrive on loathing other each other; exulting in other's misfortune; and luxuriating in being chosen by a prolific criminal over another firm. We are professional bitches. It is extremely sad that the divide and conquer philosophy that I believe was expounded so successfully under Thatcher, is (happily unlike her) alive and well today, and is likely to underpin the cull of numerous firms across this country and effective criminal defence for the innocent and guilty alike. 

If we do somehow survive the bidding contest there will be no reason to crow about being the king cock of the Magistrates' Court since the punters will not be able to choose who represents them. I promise I'm not making this up. When an individual is arrested the case will be allocated to a solicitor on the basis of either the initial of his or her surname,  or their date of birth. If the matter proceeds to trial, and solicitor and client despise each other, they are stuck together, for better or worse. Is that justice being seen to be done, one of the fundamental principles of British justice?

I am not in any way expecting or attempting to illicit any sympathy. There are far more deserving cases being shat on from a great hight by Dave and his pals. When the disabled, the elderly and sick children are getting a much less fragrant end of the stick I offer the following advice: don't, above all else, get caught.