---

Carter Review (Legal Aid)

I shall not, because the hon. Gentleman said that the very top Queen’s counsel should not be available to represent the poorest in the community, which is flawed logic. He spoke about contracting out to non-profit-making organisations that have the interests of their clients at heart, but I can tell him that every single law firm, citizens advice bureau and individual who has been involved in the debate on this topic has that interest at heart. We all recognise that, with the legal aid budget rising very quickly, action was needed. However, the Government should be targeting the areas in which costs actually are rising. Spending on civil legal aid has fallen by 24 per cent. in real terms since 1997, and there are many other areas of legal aid in which costs are either under control or falling. The budget for criminal legal aid has indeed increased but, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox) said, with all the extra offences that have been created, and with court procedures becoming more complicated, that is not surprising. There are a number of problems within the court system itself as well. One should think carefully about the argument put forward by people in some circles that solicitors are causing the problem by taking too much money. Legal aid payments to solicitors have been static for quite some time. The last pay increase for criminal legal aid was in 2001. Civil practitioners received just one rise—of 2.5 per cent.—in 2004, and there were no increases in 1993, 1994, 1997, 1998, 1999 or 2000. Even before the changes are introduced, the number of offices with civil legal aid contracts has already fallen from 4,301 in March 2004 to 3,500 in March 2006. The debate needs to be seen in context. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) observed that there is a sense of déjà vu about it, and I agree. I welcome the new Minister to her post. However, the last time we had a debate on this subject, on 11 January, I thought that the then Minister, the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), was very complacent. We debated the consequences that we predicted would flow from the changes, and we were told that we were scaremongering and over-egging the pudding. In fact, very serious patterns have emerged since that debate. The previous Minister said that everything was okay because a lot of firms had signed the contract and therefore everything was rosy. However, I have received dozens of letters from solicitors’ firms that signed the contract under what they felt to be duress. I shall quote just one example from a firm in SE20, which is probably in the constituency of Bromley and Chislehurst. It says:"““As a firm, we did not want to sign the new Civil Legal Aid Contract. It is manifestly unfair in as much as the Legal Services Commission can change it on very little notice and even put us out of business on six months’ notice without committing any offence.""At the last moment we signed the Contract when it was apparent that our brethren were not going to hold their nerve and refuse to sign. We could not commit suicide then and there without a further review of our options.””" It goes on to say:"““I anticipate that, having made alternative arrangements for the structuring of our firm, this firm will be withdrawing from publicly funded family work later this year””." The figures that were issued by the Law Society in January mentioned its survey of members. The figures indicated that 82 per cent. of family practitioners believed that their firm would be less likely to undertake publicly funded work in future, 78 per cent. of mental health practitioners were considering whether to continue to represent publicly funded clients, and 74 per cent. of immigration practitioners said that their firms were less likely to undertake legal aid work. The staggering figure of 95 per cent. of civil legal aid practitioners believed that the proposed fixed fees would make their work non-viable. Events have moved on. The Housing Law Practitioners Association survey, which is far more recent, says that 82 per cent. of respondents were opposed to the introduction of a national fixed fee, 65 per cent. expected their income to decrease by more than 10 per cent., 38 per cent. expected their income to decrease by more than 25 per cent., and 96 per cent. said that the proposals would produce a disincentive to undertake more complex cases or assist the most vulnerable. That is obviously what is happening now, and the Minister ought to recognise it and consider events as they are now. I went to see a firm in East Anglia the other day, and I sat down with its practitioners, who told me about the dilemma that they face. Some of the partners in the firm were doing a substantial amount of commercial work, and they were making a great deal of money. The other partners were doing legal aid, criminal and civil work, and they were being heavily cross-subsidised by the partners who were earning substantial amounts of money. Those other partners told me that, in all consciousness, they could not consider going on and on with the publicly funded legal aid work, because of the contrast in partners’ earnings. The firm said that it would carry on for the time being until those other partners retired, but that it would almost certainly not take on any new legal aid lawyers. As we know, many other firms are pulling out, and there will be a great deal of consolidation. In the Otterburn report, which the Department commissioned, Mr. Otterburn made it quite clear that big does not necessarily mean more efficient. In some sectors of the economy, big may be more efficient, but he came up with some valuable and compelling evidence to show that, with the extra overheads that large firms must carry, they do not necessarily offer the Department better value for money in publicly funded work. The comments made by my hon. and learned Friend were pertinent. There will be legal aid deserts. There is no question but that in the small market towns in East Anglia, there will be a significant contraction in the number of firms supplying legal aid to my constituents and to those of my numerous neighbours in such sparsely populated parts of the country. People will have to travel much further; that is the pattern emerging in many places. My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) once again went through the extraordinary example that affects his constituency. I hope very much that the Minister will respond adequately to his points, because the previous Minister did not respond properly to the concerns that the firms in my hon. Friend’s constituency expressed. The time has come for the Minister to get a grip of that situation and give my hon. Friend a proper answer. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) spoke passionately about black and minority ethnic practices. There is no question but that they will be disproportionately disadvantaged by the Government’s proposals. It is well known that in many large cities, small firms and black and minority ethnic firms are over-represented among criminal legal aid contractors, and the hon. Lady is right that many people from ethnic minorities feel more comfortable going to a business that is run by people from their community. I thought that the Government were in favour of trying to further social mobility and to help young people who want to set up in business and serve their community. I have seen people from the black and minority ethnic communities who have gone into business against considerable odds and with little support from their families. They have struggled to finance their way through college, often setting up set as single practitioners or as partners in a small business.