Reaction to other key bills

Constitutional Reform Bill: Carried over from the 2003/2004 parliamentary session, this Bill sets up a supreme court to replace the appellate court of the House of Lords. It also proposes an independent judicial appointments commission, as well as reassessment of the post of Lord Chancellor. The Law Society supports the proposed supreme court and also the principle that serving judges should no longer sit and vote in the Lords.

Criminal Defence Service Bill: Part of the government's attempts to put a brake on the cost of criminal legal aid, this Bill proposes the transfer of the power to grant legal aid from the courts to the Legal Services Commission, as well as the re-introduction of means testing before the magistrates' courts. Legal Aid Practitioners Group director Richard Miller said many of the group's concerns have been addressed by the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) in its response to a report by the constitutional affairs select committee (see page 4). However, Mr Miller expressed his continuing concern that the government had failed to address the impact new criminal legislation would have on the legal aid budget.


Draft Courts and Tribunal Reform Bill: This Bill establishes a unified tribunal system under the DCA. The proposals have been welcomed by the Law Society and the Legal Action Group among others. Group policy director Nony Ardill said the system would deliver economies of scale and be more user-friendly.


Inquiries Bill: This Bill establishes a single statutory framework for public inquiries and contains proposals to cut their length and expense. It also sets out the roles of the inquiry chairman and the minister who instigates the inquiry. Michael Smyth, head of public policy at City firm Clifford Chance, says the reforms are much needed, adding that the introduction of protections for inquiry participants against the threat of libel proceedings is particularly welcome. He says: 'The Bill is broadly balanced and will be helpful in circumstances where inquiries are of a high profile and are increasingly demanded on the grounds of accountability.'


Mental Capacity Bill and Draft Mental Health Bill: The first of these two Bills sets out a framework for decision-making for adults who lack capacity and has been welcomed by the Law Society and the Making Decisions Alliance, a coalition of 39 charities, which have campaigned together for legislation in the area. But the draft Mental Health Bill - and in particular the criteria under which individuals can be detained - has received an altogether more hostile reception. Michael Kennedy, an executive committee member of the Mental Health Lawyers Association (MHLA) and partner at west Yorkshire firm Switalskis, says: 'Up to this point, it has been very clear that a person needs to suffer from a mental disorder up to a certain level if they are to be detained. The fundamental concern we have [with the proposals] is that people could be detained without those strict criteria being met.' The MHLA also has strong reservations about how the system will cope with an expected surge in the number of cases, and is against the proposed removal of the statutory duty to provide after-care.