That this House, while accepting that the legal aid system is in need of reform, is concerned that the Government’s planned implementation of Lord Carter’s proposals could force several hundred law firms out of business leaving vulnerable clients without access to effective representation; is concerned that the proposals identified in the Carter Review could further endanger the supplier base; notes that the changes to the proposals announced by the Government on 28th November 2006, while welcome, do not go far enough…and calls upon the Government to guarantee a legal aid system ensuring quality representation and fair access to justice for all – EDM 537

Yesterday, I spent the day shadowing an MP friend of mine. During the course of the day, I had the pleasure of meeting three lawyers who had come to Westminster to lobby for support to fight the imposition of the ‘Carter’ reforms to legal aid in this country. I am ashamed to admit that this important issue has, up until now, passed me by.

In recent years, much has been written about what British society is about. Much of this national introspection has been caused by the terrorist attacks of recent years. One constituent part of that society,I would argue, is the access to justice. A civilised nation should guarantee that every person receives proper defence in court, irrespective of nationality and financial means. Until now, legal aid has been the British way of ensuring that access.

The Carter Report was commissioned because of widespread concern that the legal aid system was inefficient and, in some high-profile cases, appeared to be misused. Even if some of those concerns were justifiable, the reality for most lawyers working in legal aid cases, was that costs were already more than the monies received in return from the state. One lawyer told me yesterday that on present terms his ‘legal aid’ time was valued at approximately £60 per hour, out of which he had to cover his business costs before paying himself. That hardly struck me as an excessive amount, indeed, I am concerned that it is so modest that future generations of lawyers will be put off covering legal aid cases. Why be a legal-aid lawyer when one can earn more as a plumber?

The problem with Carter is that it appears to be suggesting further cost-cutting. The most controversial change, replacing hourly solicitors’ fees with fixed or graduated payments, is particularly concerning for legal firms. By some assessments, these changes will lead to up to 800 law firms¹ - double the number originally predicted by Lord Carter himself- being forced to close business. There are apparently already so-called “advice deserts”, areas of the country where legal advice is not readily available, e.g. Isle of Wight. My understanding is that there is a real fear that these deserts will become larger and more numerous.

On 15th January, a debate in the House of Commons took place to discuss the Carter proposals. Vera Baird QC, Legal Aid Minister, confirmed that the government had adopted the ‘direction of travel’ of the Carter reforms. She confirmed that there was no prospect of extra money for legal aid. The EDM (Early Day Motion) quoted above has been circulated and has attracted cross-party support from 112 MPs. If I was an MP it would get my support. The “What Price Justice?” Campaign started by the Law Society, and supported by many organisations including NSPCC and MIND, has been instrumental in raising the profile of this important issue.

I could see yesterday that there are lawyers who have a sense of public duty when it comes to legal-aid cases. I could also sense their anger and frustration with the Carter proposals. As Desmond Hudson, chief executive of the Law Society of England and Wales, has said: “Solicitors go into legal aid work with a commitment to public service, but that commitment must not be exploited.”

The importance of a properly-funded legal aid system cannot be over stated. Clearly, proper regulation of the area is needed, however, to implement changes that could erode access to justice would be morally wrong. Ironically, this Labour government could be introducing legislation that could harm the most vulnerable people in society, the very people they claim to best represent. My fear is that without proper and fair legal representation, the families and friends of these people could be driven to exact their own justice, hopefully, not in the way that Michael Caine’s character did in that infamous 1970s film.

¹ LECG