---

Carter Review (Legal Aid)

That is absolutely right, but instead of looking to tackle the problem, Ministers are here attacking committed public defenders. The previous Minister did herself a great disservice during the previous debate, when she suggested that Hull solicitors were simply seeking more money. She repeatedly accused them of behaving like fat-cat lawyers by demanding more money to travel to Beverley. She told us that they were refusing to do work that they were contractually obligated to do—that is, to travel to Beverley—and that they were trying"““to boycott the work that they are being paid to do.””—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 12 June 2007; Vol. 461, c. 250WH.]" That was said by a Minister of the Crown in this Room about hard-working criminal solicitors based in my constituency and working in Hull. No wonder she moved jobs, although, sadly, that has resulted in a promotion, instead of a return to the Back Benches which she properly deserved for having said what she did. The then Minister said that the solicitors had"““achieved a 2 per cent. pay rise on the assumption that they go to Beverley. Actually, solicitors are not going to Beverley; they are grasping a much bigger pay rise by avoiding that obligation.””—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 12 June 2007; Vol. 461, c. 250WH.]" That was said by a Minister of the Crown about solicitors in my local area. However, the 2 per cent. figure to which she referred is incorrect. Just one of the eight firms will receive a 2 per cent. increase; most will receive no extra money, and one is set to lose money as a result of the reforms. Peter Barker, of Barker and Co. solicitors, tells me that the Legal Services Commission has consistently refused to provide the evidential base for the claim that was made in this Chamber about those Hull solicitors. If the new Minister is unable to respond to that point today, perhaps she will write to me following the debate to ensure that the then Minister’s claim is either substantiated or retracted. Within just a few days of the debate, I received an e-mail from Richard Miller, of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, who stated that the Minister’s claim"““would amount to serious misconduct and breach of contract by the firms, not to mention arguably amounting to a fraud of the ""taxpayer. The firms are doing nothing of the sort. They are receiving a fixed fee for work they undertake in accordance with their contract, the same fixed fee as every other solicitor in an urban area outside London. They are not being paid specifically to attend Beverley, they are not paid for any cases they do not undertake and they are not failing to undertake any work they are contractually required to do.””" I also received correspondence from Bill Waddington, of Williamsons solicitors, who watched the debate on television in disbelief. Speaking of the Minister’s claim that the eight Hull firms had proposed to the Legal Services Commission that they be offered payment for travelling and waiting on top of the new revised fee—in essence, that they be paid twice over—he said"““I cannot imagine for one moment that this was a misunderstanding of the proposals that we put to the LSC””." The firms had suggested that they revert instead to the old, lower fee, but that they be paid for waiting and travelling, because the inadequate administration in many courts often led to solicitors sitting around for many hours, and they could not afford to do that without at least being remunerated or having the system improved. Mr. Waddington went on to say that, unfortunately, he had come to the view that the then Minister’s statement was ““deliberately misleading.”” He said:"““what we in fact proposed in an attempt to resolve this issue pre-April 16th was that they should consider de-urbanising the rural area””," which would take us back to the old way of doing things. The previous Minister and, indeed, this Minister—as I understand it, we have one, indivisible Government—owe the eight Hull firms an apology. The then Minister attempted to tarnish their professional reputations and caused personal anguish to the individuals concerned. Those people are committed to the services that they provide in our community; they do not enter the profession to become rich and they are particularly proud of the work that they do. As one firm put it:"““Solicitors do not jettison clients that have sometimes been represented by their firm over many years without trepidation and crisis of conscience.””" These solicitors do not deserve to be smeared by a Minister who, as a member of the Bar, was used to far greater remuneration than they currently receive. The present Minister should recognise that, do the honourable thing and apologise on behalf of the previous Minister this afternoon. If she cannot find time to address my points in her remarks, I would ask her again for a written communication that I can share with my constituents to ensure that the injustice that occurred in this Chamber is put right.