* introducing a unified contract for civil legal services in April 2007, starting with standard terms to bring law firms and NfP agencies under the same contract conditions

* revised standard fees for magistrates' court work, which include an element of travel and waiting, will be introduced in main urban areas from April 2007 (initially proposed for all areas from this date)

* introducing a revised graduated fees scheme for Crown Court advocates from April 2007. Crown Court litigators' graduated fees to be introduced in October 2007 (initially proposed for April 2007)

* introducing a single graduated fees scheme in the Crown Court for both litigators and advocates, that will be subject to best value competitive tendering, by October 2008 (initially proposed for 2009)

* fixed fees for police station work to be introduced in October 2007 (initially proposed for April 2007) and these to be set according to new boundary areas to allow for sensitivity to local conditions (initial proposal was to set fees by criminal justice system area)

* implementing revised care proceedings graduated fees (consultation will take place in early 2007) in October 2007 (initially proposed for April 2007)

* implementing revised graduated fees for family law - private work (consultation will take place in early 2007) in October 2007 (graduated fees initially proposed for April 2007)

* the replacement for tailored fixed fees for civil legal services will be implemented from October 2007 for both solicitors and for the not-for-profit sector (initially proposed for April 2007)

* licence-only contracts will not be issued. Current holders of such contracts will be offered a full controlled work contract from April 2007

* peer review will be required only at level 3 from April 2007; level 2 will be required for future bidding rounds

* the LSC will announce its timetable for its new systems and processes in February 2007 (eg IT requirements, more flexible working).

The announcement amounts to no more than a stay of execution for legal aid firms, according to LAPG director Richard Miller. Vulnerable clients can have little confidence that they will be able to get the legal advice they need in the future.

Miller said, "The changes that have been announced are welcome, and give vital extra time to try to bridge the gulf between the profession and the government. In particular, we welcome the acknowledgement that the proposals for family law need substantial revision and further consultation. But the DCA has not given ground on some of the most serious flaws in the proposals. "There is no understanding of the problems of fixed fees in social welfare law cases. The swings and roundabouts firms are supposed to rely on do not exist. Fixed fees penalise firms doing more complex work, and doing work for client groups with particular needs and difficulties, just as much as they penalise inefficient firms, if such an animal still exists in the legal aid system. The result is that many of the most experienced and skilled lawyers undertaking this work will be lost to the system. Advice deserts will worsen, and many more clients will be unable to get the help they need. "There is no polluter pays mechanism. If solicitors have to work on fixed fees that are calculated on the assumption that the system runs smoothly, there has to be direct and immediate compensation when it does not. When the CPS has lost the file, when the prison delivery service turns up four hours late, when the police officer is not there for the bailback, in every single case the solicitor must be compensated for the additional costs caused. Otherwise the business model for undertaking this work is seriously undermined; and if the business case does not stack up, it is once again the clients who will suffer. "Most significantly of all, the government is still insisting that there is no more money for legal aid, despite the additional burdens the Home Office in particular has put on the system in recent years. The government is right to say that this country has one of the best-funded legal aid systems in the world. It is something that should make us all proud. But the government is demanding about £3 billion of work for its £2 billion, and that just does not work. What limited scope there is for 'greater efficiency' cannot come close to plugging this gap. This stone is out of blood. Practitioners are voting with their feet because they cannot make a viable business of providing this service on the financial terms the government is offering."