---

Criminal Defence Service (Funding) (Amendment) Order 2005

My Lords, there are two separate things. The first is, as it were, the emergency package to deal with the £130 million overspend—although I make clear that it addresses only a proportion of the £130 million. The four things done there are: reducing QCs rates in very high cost contract cases and in one to 10-day graduated fee cases; reducing the rates in 11 to 40-day graduated fee scheme cases for both QCs and juniors; reducing senior solicitor rates in very high cost contract cases; and removing the possibility of an uplift to the prescribed solicitor rates for some offences and, for the remaining offences, restricting the uplift to 100 per cent. Those four things were designed to target the very high cost cases, using that phrase in a non-technical sense to mean cases at the expensive end of the spectrum, which would be very high cost contract cases with a capital ‘v’ but also high cost cases with a small ‘h’ and a small ‘c’. We proposed those changes on 5 July and told the Bar and solicitors that we would consult them and if they thought that there was a better way to target them at the expensive end of the market, we would happily amend the proposals, but within the same financial envelope. Ultimately, both the Bar and the solicitors did not advance any other proposals. Indeed, the position of the Bar was exemplified by a letter dated 26 July 2005 to an official in my department from Mr Andrew Hall. It states:"““The leadership of the Bar is not prepared to assist the Department in imposing unjustified cuts on the profession””." It retained that position throughout. There were discussions but ultimately no alternative proposal was formally put. The other category of cuts includes cases known as cracks and guiltys. The cracks and guiltys scheme involves moving cases where there is a ““guilty”” plea or those listed as a ““not guilty”” plea that turn out to be a ““guilty”” plea at or before trial. There is a move from assessment after the event on an hourly basis of what the barrister should be paid to something akin to a graduated fee scheme. That saves the balance of the money. That has been discussed in detail with the Bar from last year through to the beginning of this year. It is separate from the arrangements to deal with the £130 million overspend to which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred. All that was done before the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, reported because with the first category of cuts we were in considerable financial difficulty but it was agreed last year that the changes to the second category of cuts would be made last autumn or as soon thereafter as possible. They are both explicable. The critical issue is that we deal with the lack of control in legal aid generally coming from very high cost cases. It is swallowing not just legal aid for normal criminal cases but also civil legal aid. So although there has been an increase in criminal legal aid over the past few years, there has been a decrease in civil legal aid. Since 1997, criminal legal aid costs have risen by 37 per cent while civil legal aid costs, excluding asylum, have fallen by 24 per cent. We must address that just as much as the prices paid for more ordinary criminal cases. We cannot continue to deal with the matter piecemeal as we have done year on year for the past eight or nine years, myself included as Lord Chancellor. We need an authoritative look, particularly at criminal legal aid, that gets the confidence of the professions and ensures an independent Bar and fair remuneration for solicitors. That is why I have appointed the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles. In the middle of last year, I promised that there would be a review of the graduated fee scheme and the very high costs cases scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, must review those as part of his bigger review. Although I promised it by May this year, it was not set up until July. I regret that, but there has been no failure to deliver a review. It is now part of a much wider review. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, is absolutely right that there has been a £450 million increase in criminal legal aid since 1997. He is also right that three reasons for the increase are inflation, increased complexity and a small increase in the number of cases dealt with. But a significant part of it—20 per cent or more—is simply an increase in rates. I will give the detailed figures to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, in a letter and I will put that letter in the Library of the House. There is no regulatory impact assessment in the order because the only figure that one would include would be the amounts saved. We think that that is sufficient. I am grateful for the opportunity to make those points. Legal aid, particularly in criminal cases, is a big problem. I very much hope that the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, will command respect right around the profession, and that this House will have the opportunity to debate them as soon as possible after he has delivered his report, which must be before 31 January 2006. I invite the House, in those circumstances, to accept the order.