---

Criminal Defence Service (Representation Orders and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2006

I may as well say that—we all know what interests I have to declare. My point is that a case well put will be put without delay and money will be saved. The appeal system, which was put in after some pressure following consultation, will enable appeals to be made only on the ground of the interest of justice and not on financial grounds. But, of course, constant applications and appeals cost money and cause delay, and what is gained by reducing legal aid may be lost by the greater time spent in court dealing with cases where people are appealing or where, alternatively, there is no representation at all. As the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, setting these arbitrary financial limits may cause an imbalance. Average incomes are higher in London than they are, for example, in Wales, and one can see that we will have an imbalance in that people whose standard of living is no higher in metropolitan areas will nevertheless be above the threshold of the financial limit because their incomes will appear to be higher. So I do not think that this across-the-board financial limit, which takes no account of the costs of metropolitan living and the incomes that are gained here, is necessarily a very good one. I hope that the noble Baroness can tell me either that I am wrong in my assessment and that the limit will not be across the board or that, in the future, some account will be taken of that as the scheme comes into operation. I understand that a national agency is to be set up. National agencies have been a disaster. The Criminal Assets Recovery Agency, of which I have some experience, has cost taxpayers around £60 million since 2003 and has recovered £8 million. It is easy to farm these things out to agencies but is it cost-effective? The difference there of something like £70 million or £74 million would, in any event, pay for a fair amount of magistrates’ court representation over a year. So setting up an agency and taking this work away from the magistrates’ court or from government departments generally is not necessarily the best way to proceed. My verdict on these orders is: wait and see—the traditional Asquithian view. I strongly suspect that there will be unforeseen consequences and that the scheme will have to be revised, just as the abolition of means-testing was revised by these orders. It is the ongoing problems that I am sure will come before us again in the not-too-distant future.