---

Carter Review (Legal Aid)

The hon. Gentleman’s point is absolutely spot on, and I agree 100 per cent. that, of course, that is the situation. My hon. and learned Friend pointed out that it is the clients who matter most. The people in the community who rely on publicly funded legal advice will suffer most. There is no question but that many such clients have complex cases, and that without legal aid and access to local solicitors, those cases will not be solved. I have considered various individual cases; in fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) brought some complex child and family cases to my attention. They included one extremely complex case that involved care proceedings, which went on and on. That case would never fit easily into a fixed-fee system, but it would probably not be complex enough to fit into the next category. Citizens Advice wrote to all Members with a brief, giving us many examples of people who come in with one particular case, but for whom after about 10 minutes, it becomes apparent that the case is far more complex. Again, such cases just do not lend themselves easily or tidily to a fixed-fee system. Cherry-picking will take place: there is no question but that fixed fees will actively encourage many firms to cherry-pick the easier, simpler cases. Of course, they could resort to exceptional status cases, but very few cases will qualify for that status. There will be a few such complex cases, but the vast majority will fall into the fixed-fee category. What will happen is very simple: many firms will have to cherry-pick cases and ignore more complicated cases. Richard Miller of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group said that"““as well as penalising firms doing more complex work, the scheme””—" will actually encourage providers to look at the more— "““simple cases.””" The consequences that will flow from the situation are obvious. We must consider the law of unintended consequences. The Government may well save a small amount of money through those changes, and they may control the budget and put it on an even keel, but what about the social consequences and the other costs that other Departments will have to pick up? The profession and HM Courts Service are in meltdown. We have a new Prime Minister, new Ministers and a superb Committee report. I urge the Minister to make a name for herself, and plead with the Prime Minister to treat this issue in the same way as he treated the casinos issue. He has the ideal opportunity: he has the Committee’s report, to which there has been a wholly inadequate response. The Minister should take it away, consider another response and reconsider all the arguments that have been put by Members from all parts of the House, but above all, by people in the profession who know what is happening on the ground. I urge her to take action.