---

Criminal Defence Service (Funding) (Amendment) Order 2005

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his reply and for explaining in some detail—much more than it was possible to do last Wednesday—the reasoning behind his proposal. Of course, I am entirely convinced that it is his wish, as well as mine, to see a flourishing legal profession. But the noble and learned Lord has not removed my concerns about the order. He raised the point of criminal legal aid eating into civil legal aid, which many of us have been aware of for a long time. Indeed, it was raised in your Lordships’ House on several occasions. It is our view that criminal legal aid, which is demand-led because it is essential that people who are charged with criminal offences must have proper representation, should be ring-fenced. Civil legal aid should have a regular amount. It should not be cut because of increases in criminal legal aid. Civil legal aid is essential for ordinary people’s access to justice. We believe that increases in criminal legal aid should be borne out of general taxation rather than at the cost of civil legal aid. However, there is no doubt that the total level of criminal legal aid spending has increased substantially, but a large proportion has been siphoned off into those very high cost cases. The position is quite different for the ordinary criminal law barrister who does routine work and not the complex fraud and other cases that eat up so much money. There is no doubt that individual barrister’s earnings have gone up as he or she progresses, but that is natural progression for barristers during their careers. They start at a low level of earnings and progress higher. I recognise that a number of chambers provide guaranteed income for new barristers, but that is not a substitute for paying proper fees. Indeed, cuts in fees may make it more difficult for chambers to finance that kind of guarantee. So I remain seriously concerned that this order—which quite plainly cuts fees, as is admitted on all sides, by what will be £28 million—will have a significant and damaging effect on the future of the criminal bar. For the reasons that I gave earlier, it is not my intention to press this Motion. I therefore beg leave to withdraw it. Motion, by leave, withdrawn.