---

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

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Thomas of Gresford, for the spirit in which they have debated these regulations. I accept that noble Lords have indicated a number of areas where they want to make sure the department and Ministers involved keep an eye on what happens. In my closing remarks I will tackle some of the questions they have raised. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, talked about the fact that there was no appeal. However, we introduced, as a Liberal Democrat amendment in another place, the ability of the LSC to refer questions to the High Court. We have also made sure there is an administrative review, because we want people who feel they have been incorrectly assessed to be able to go back to the LSC and say, ““I want this looked at again””. That is very important. There is also the ability to go back and talk about particular concerns about hardship. We think we have the elements there. I know this is not as far as noble Lords originally wanted us to go, but we believe we have created a system—which we will keep under review—that will enable us to ensure that we assess people properly. I accept too that in the foothills of Carter, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, described it, we need to ensure that this all fits together. We see what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has said, in his comprehensive consideration of the legal system, as part and parcel of a number of changes we are seeking to make. As noble Lords will know, the consultation takes place over the next three months. The noble Lord’s proposals are one part of our consideration of the criminal justice system and the reform programme, and these regulations represent another part of that. We do not see them in contradiction with each other, however, but as complementary. The noble Lord was fully aware of that situation when carrying out his review. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, about keeping the figures under review as we implement the Carter proposals, however the consultation turns out. I accept that we should do that, and commit that we will, to ensure that the eligibility criteria are assessed from time to time to make sure we have got them about right. As for concern about the coverage of legal aid practitioners, noble Lords will know that the LSC has been piloting the telephone helpline, CDS Direct. I take the point about the citizens advice bureaux being an important partner, but also recognise that it does a huge amount of work, for which I pay tribute to it. As we have said, the court duty solicitor will remain. In his report, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, acknowledges, with regard to geographical distribution, that one size does not fit all. There will be regional consultation from the Legal Services Commission to ensure that we have coverage in each locality as appropriate. I agree with noble Lords that that is an important part of what we need to do. Then, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, there is the business viability of solicitors. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, described his own experiences in that regard. We must ensure that we have thriving businesses for solicitors who are able to do this work. There is no desire on our part to do anything other than ensure that, but we need to do so in a way that addresses our concerns about legal aid spending. As I indicated in these regulations, one of the issues is the rebalancing of legal aid in the context of the civil and family courts. The noble Lord also asked me about unrepresented defendants. We have figures for the 12 months to December 2003. I do not have more recent figures with me, but if we have any I will let noble Lords have them. The number of defendants in magistrates’ courts was over 1.8 million, but only 630,000 representation orders were granted for the same period; so about two-thirds were represented by the court duty solicitor, paid privately or were unrepresented. I do not have a breakdown of those figures, but the numbers are significant. I accept that there are issues about those who are unrepresented perhaps taking more time within the court system, and that there are consequences of that in terms of cost. However, things are running pretty smoothly in most magistrates’ courts, and we will monitor the situation to ensure that remains the case. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, was concerned about real incomes, costs and regional differences, particularly in south-east London. The means assessment provides for housing costs to be taken into consideration. The noble Lord knows well that housing costs are one of the main considerations and drivers behind regional differences in income, so we should be able to militate against unfairness. But if regional factors prove to be decisive, we will look more closely at them—we are alive to regional issues. We think that we have covered them and we are alive to the fact that housing is an important issue. We have debated the £20,740 threshold. Of course, that is adjusted to reflect family circumstances. Defendants may earn in excess of that but, if they have children, they may qualify. That is the threshold where we introduce issues such as family needs and so on, so there is not necessarily a cut-off at £20,740. We have not set up a new national agency. In fact, the Courts Service will carry out the means test on behalf of the Legal Services Commission under a contract between them. In part, that reflects our desire to ensure that we have consistency across the country, but we will also have within the Legal Services Commission dedicated staff to tackle complex and high-risk cases, as well as those who will look at hardship. We have deliberately not gone down the route of setting up a new national agency for the reasons that the noble Lord gave. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, asked me to say what the Crown Court scheme might look like. Your Lordships will be kept in touch regarding the development of the scheme. At the moment, the proposed features are that financial eligibility will be subject to the same test that is adopted in the magistrates’ court but, where a defendant is financially ineligible, he will be asked to make an income-based contribution to the costs of the case. Frankly, few defendants will be able to afford to pay the entire costs of a Crown Court defence. The scheme might include a capital contribution based on liquid capital assets held in banks and building societies. As noble Lords know, we will be looking potentially to pilot any such scheme in a prescribed area, as provided for in Section 3(3) of the Criminal Defence Service Act 2006, for a specified period not exceeding 12 months. That may enable us to look at the matter in more detail. Those are the elements of the scheme thus far and, as I have indicated, I will make sure that we keep noble Lords in touch with any other issues that arise. I think that I have answered most, if not all, of the questions raised, except for one, which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, asked concerning adequate remuneration for solicitors. I remind noble Lords that the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, is talking about a new procurement and payment scheme for legal aid. The Legal Services Commission proposes to move to fixed and graduated fees from April 2007 for a wide variety of civil and family work and for most immigration work. That will enable us to promote and reward effective working by suppliers and will restructure funding in family disputes more towards early and amicable resolution wherever possible and away from contested court litigation. That will enable us to promote efficiency, to which the noble Lord referred, and we hope that that will contribute towards ensuring that the costs are used to the best effect. I hope that I have answered all the questions that noble Lords have asked. On Question, Motion agreed to.