---

Carter Review (Legal Aid)

I too declare an interest, although it is registered. I am a non-practising barrister. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on his superb report, and I agree with him that it is a pity that this debate is taking place in Westminster Hall, especially as it is the second occasion on which we have had a debate on this subject here instead of in the House. Many people take a huge interest in the subject, and they would have liked to have seen the debate take place in the main Chamber and to have had better seating. Had that been the case, everyone would have been able to get into the Gallery. That should be considered in future. The report was extremely full, and the Committee went to a great deal of trouble to take evidence from every possible affected organisation. The Committee produced some compelling and damning quotes, remarks and suggestions. On the need to take action, page 86 of the report says:"““Not to do so would be reckless.””" Paragraph 38 on page 87 is headed ““The impact of the reforms on BME firms and clients.”” Underneath, the report says:"““This may limit access to justice for members of ethnic minorities.””" The final paragraph says:"““There has been a catastrophic deterioration in the relationship between suppliers, their representative organisations, and the LSC.””" I found the Government’s response to a very impressive report to be wholly inadequate, and that has been brought out in the speeches of other hon. Members. There were some excellent contributions. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) spoke with great passion. She is my local MP, so I suppose that I am biased, but I agreed with her entirely, as I do on virtually every issue. So much is that the case that I shall have a dilemma at the next election—I shall either vote for myself in North-West Norfolk or I shall support her in Vauxhall. I shall look to the opinion polls nearer the time to guide me in that choice. I shall briefly mention the contribution of the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), who, because he was looking towards you, Mr. Martlew, could not see the gnashing of teeth going on behind him. Some of his logic was flawed, I think, because he suggested that if one is a rich crook one can afford the best legal advice but that a poor crook has to make do with second best, and he implied that the best lawyers should not get legal aid work and support in order to represent people in their hour of need.