It’s probably a headline in itself that a Justice Secretary got it so right. That’s what happened yesterday with Gove’s announcements on criminal legal aid, but the reason why he was forced into to making this policy U-turn was a combination of the inept political strategy of his predecessor and incompetent administration.   The two tier contract system, which has been abandoned, was a compromise cobbled together under the previous Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, when he realised that he could not ditch the principle of client choice. I am still at a loss to understand why a Conservative politician who purports to be a champion of the free market could preside over a tendering system designed to reduce competition for duty police and magistrates court work by two thirds. Particularly as it would not have saved any cash and would have driven down quality, but Grayling thought the opposite.   The Justice Alliance and the representative bodies including CLSA and LCCSA should be praised for the tenacious campaign they fought, but I suspect that the final shove that pushed the two tier cart over the cliff was the design and administration of the tender process. Making judgments about awarding tenders by forcing firms to answer essay style questions always had the potential to come unstuck through accusations of a lack of objectivity. Getting temporary staff to mark the applications, in what was by all accounts a febrile and pressurised environment, was a recipe to produce the sort of inconsistencies which were at the heart of the legal challenges mounted by the firms. In ditching the tenders now the government has avoided the danger of them unravelling slowing and painfully in the courts over the coming months.   At the risk of being accused of being a kill-joy, I have to point out that the losers from yesterday's developments are the firms which were successful in their tender applications. Opinion is divided on whether they can seek compensation, but some have definitely incurred significant losses. Also, returning to the status quo for the duty rotas means the problems with them will continue, particularly the so called ghost slots occupied by solicitors who sell them on. Putting aside these concerns, what is most heartening is that Gove has clearly signalled a more consultative and conciliatory approach to the provision of criminal defence services. In addition to scrapping the tenders, he has agreed to abandon fee changes and most significantly reverse the 8.75% cut which was introduced last April. The Justice Secretary will also establish an advisory council of lawyers to explore reducing costs and bureaucracy in the criminal justice system.   Re-building bridges with criminal defence lawyers will certainly assist the Justice Secretary in his ambitious plans to reform the courts with the greater use of technology. The changes in fees he was able to make were due to greater than expected savings in the legal aid budget. It should not be forgotten that these can be attributed to an extent by the significant under spend in civil legal aid. Last year the House of Commons Justice Committee  concluded that this was partly due to a lack of information on civil legal aid being made available to the public.   LAG believes that firms and nfps are being forced to abandon civil legal aid through a combination of the cuts to scope, the amount of unpaid work caused by the complexity of the legal aid system and the uneconomic fees for the work which is still covered by civil legal aid. Added to this is the falling numbers of charitable advice centres caused by the civil legal aid and other cuts, which has reduced access to justice for many members of the public. It is to be hoped therefore, that now criminal legal aid policy is on a steadier course policy makers will devote more attention to access to justice in civil cases.   Steve Hynes, Director of LAG   Pic: Demonstrators including actress Maxine Peak  at a protest organised by the Justice Alliance which took place last year.