HL Deb 09 December 2004 vol 667 cc1028-9

2.19 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Baroness Ashton of Upholland) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21 October be approved [31st Report from the Joint Committee, Session 2003–04].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in 2001 the Lord Chancellor established a new regime to improve control of the legal aid costs incurred by defence legal representatives in the most expensive criminal cases. The changes were introduced in response to concern that the proportion of the criminal legal aid budget taken up by the most expensive 1 per cent of criminal cases had risen from 40 per cent to 49 per cent of expenditure on criminal legal aid.

In August of this year amendments were made to the criminal defence service funding order and the criminal defence service general regulations that altered the definition of a "very high cost case" in criminal proceedings. This amendment followed a joint review of the existing very high cost case contract arrangements undertaken by officials of my department with the Bar Council and the Law Society. Previously, a criminal very high cost case was defined in regulations to be a case over which the trial was expected to last 25 days or more, or for which defence costs for any defendant or group of defendants represented by the same firm were expected to he £150,000 or more. The August amendment substituted the condition of 41 days or longer in place of the 25 days and removed the £150,000 estimated cost requirement.

The Law Society and the Bar Council were consulted about the August 2004 amendments and accepted that this consequential instrument would be needed. The elements set out in the order have not given rise to any opposition on consultation, and both the Law Society and the Bar Council have been notified of our intention to proceed with this part of the package. Indeed the overall arrangements for very high cost criminal cases have been accepted by the legal profession and provide a basis on which cases can he conducted in a way that is fair to lawyers and gives good value to the taxpayer. In my view, the provisions of the regulations are compatible with convention rights. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21 October be approved. [31st Report from the Joint Committee, Session 2003–04].—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

Lord Goodhart

My Lords, we understand that, as the Minister said, the regulations have been negotiated with and accepted by the Bar Council and the Law Society. They are an attempt to deal with a very serious problem in what seems to us, in the circumstances, an acceptable way. Therefore, we are happy to support the statutory instrument.

Lord Kingsland

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and have nothing to add.

On Question, Motion agreed to.