← Back to House of Commons Debates
Legal Aid
15 March 2022
Lead MP
Dominic Raab
Debate Type
Ministerial Statement
Tags
Justice & CourtsEmploymentForeign Affairs
Other Contributors: 18
At a Glance
Dominic Raab raised concerns about legal aid in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Government Statement
Today, I am publishing the Government's response to the independent review of criminal legal aid by Sir Christopher Bellamy. The announcement includes a 15% increase in various fee schemes for police station work, magistrates and Crown Court cases, and high-cost solicitors' cases. Additionally, there is an overall investment of £135 million with £20 million set aside annually for longer-term investments such as youth court reform and litigator fee scheme adjustments. The total funding will reach £1.2 billion—the highest level in a decade—aiming to deliver swift access to justice, promote a sustainable criminal defence market, and enhance diversity within the legal profession. Plans include reviewing standard crime contracts, offering grants for training, and enabling CILEX professionals to become duty solicitors without additional qualifications. Moreover, there will be an advisory board to guide future policy decisions and consultations on eligibility thresholds to ensure fairer support for those who need it most.
Afzal Khan
Lab
Manchester Rusholme
Question
Can the Justice Secretary outline the membership of the advisory board and ensure its representation and diversity? What is the timeline for implementing these reforms, especially given the severe backlog in criminal courts?
Minister reply
The Government will gather views on how to structure an independent advisory board that reflects all parts of the legal profession. Regarding implementation timelines, specific dates have not been announced but the aim is to deliver swifter justice and a sustainable market for practitioners.
Afzal Khan
Lab
Manchester Rusholme
Question
Welcomed the proposal but criticised it as insufficient, citing underfunding since 2012. Raised concerns about the delay in implementation and asked for details on when recommendations will take effect.
Minister reply
Thanked the hon. Gentleman for his support and clarified that consultation would last for 12 weeks to avoid judicial review risks, followed by statutory instrument introduction for October.
Bob Neill
Con
Question
Welcomed the proposals and asked whether they could meet with the profession swiftly but lawfully.
Minister reply
Agreed on swift implementation but emphasised the importance of lawful process, hence a 12-week consultation followed by statutory instrument in October.
Andrew Slaughter
Lab
Hammersmith and Chiswick
Question
Asked if the Secretary of State acknowledges Labour's cuts under previous government and questioned whether this announcement will help reduce backlog.
Minister reply
Stated no lectures from the hon. Gentleman given his support for past cuts, and highlighted progress in reducing court backlogs.
Robert Buckland
Con
Question
Welcomed the reforms and suggested a shorter consultation period of eight weeks.
Minister reply
Acknowledged the work done by the right hon. Friend but advised against shortening the consultation from 12 to 8 weeks due to legal risks and importance of thorough discussions.
Karen Buck
Lab
Westminster North
Question
The Government cannot swerve responsibility for having made the largest cuts that have ever been made to the legal aid budget, which have brought civil and criminal providers to their knees. The whole service is held together by good will. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on legal aid, I welcome every single penny that comes back into the service, but the fact remains that there is a crisis of capacity. Our inquiry report a few months ago showed just how many providers are closing and have been closing every month over recent years. I ask the Secretary of State exactly what steps he will now take to deal with the crisis in the provision of civil legal aid—he did not answer that in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan)—not least to accommodate the additional demand for service that will now flow into it as an admittedly welcome consequence of adjustments to the means test.
Minister reply
I think the hon. Lady was also around at the time when the Labour Government were planning their cuts. [Interruption.] She does not like it, but I remind her that it was Tony Blair who said that the Labour Government would "derail the gravy train of legal aid", so I am afraid that she cannot come to the House with those crocodile tears. On her substantive point, however, the consultation on expanding the Public Defender Service and the 15% raise in legal fees will deal with the scarcity of legal aid practitioners in certain areas. As I have already said in relation to the means test review, millions of extra people will become eligible for civil legal aid, which she should welcome.
Jeremy Wright
Con
Kenilworth and Southam
Question
I, too, welcome what my right hon. Friend has announced. He is right to focus on attracting bright young lawyers into criminal defence work. Does he also recognise that it is important to retain more experienced criminal defence lawyers who can take on the complex cases that, as he will appreciate, form a larger and larger proportion of the criminal courts caseload? Specifically in relation to pages of prosecution evidence, I understand that my right hon. Friend is following one of Sir Christopher’s recommendations in that respect, but he will understand that that has been a proxy for the complexity and difficulty of criminal cases for some time. If we are not to increase fees in that regard, how does he intend to reflect those complex and difficult cases?
Minister reply
I agree with many of my right hon. and learned Friend’s points. He makes the right point that we must ensure that we still have the expertise we need at the high end of the profession. In relation to the rate of pages of prosecution evidence, he will know that we want to ensure that we do not encourage perverse incentives. I am not suggesting that that is done deliberately, but systemically it is something that we need to look at, and it is right to do so. Instead, as set out in the Government’s response, we will invite views on the longer term reform of the litigators’ graduated fee scheme to include the optimal basic structure of litigator remuneration, the role of pages of prosecution evidence in determining fees and what data should be collected to enable a thorough examination of litigator preparatory work. I hope that will address the points made.
Wera Hobhouse
Lib Dem
Bath
Question
For years, the south-west has been called a legal aid desert. There is currently a huge backlog in the courts; legal aid is one part of the problem and workforce another. Justice delayed is justice denied. Can the Secretary of State tell me what immediate difference this statement will make to the thousands of victims in the south-west who are waiting for justice or who cannot even get justice now?
Minister reply
The proposals on the Public Defender Service and the means test review, and the increase in the fees, will all look across the board at areas where there is a scarcity of supply of practitioners willing to take on that work, in order to fill the gaps. I look forward to that and I hope that the hon. Lady will contribute to the consultation.
Question
The Government are to be congratulated on accepting Sir Christopher’s headline recommendations in full. I saw how much care and consideration went into that piece of work, but I would like to ask my right hon. Friend about chapter 13 of the report, which deals with fee income at the criminal Bar. Sir Christopher found that at every level of seniority female barristers earned less than their male counterparts, on average by 34%. He also found that non-white criminal practitioners earned less than white criminal practitioners by an average of 10%. What reassurances can he provide that this significant injection of public money will not be used to sustain potentially unlawful pay disparities?
Minister reply
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this very important point. In 2020, the gender balance at the point of entry among specialist criminal barristers was roughly 50:50, but at the senior level there is a much higher imbalance, with a ratio of 70:30 men to women. What are we doing about that? Our fees changes, for example in relation to duty solicitors, will particularly support younger lawyers. They will disproportionately help women with caring responsibilities.
We are also looking at further diversification through the roles and the rights that CILEX members can acquire. CILEX has allowed non-graduate routes into the profession, and I think 76% of its members are women. More generally, breaking down glass ceilings and barriers to entry into the profession is important. Beyond fees, the consultation will allow us to consult and to understand what more we can do systemically to attract a broader diversity of practitioners into the profession and then, critically, allow them to flourish.
Chris Bryant
Lab
Rhondda and Ogmore
Question
The Secretary of State is right to say that we need to deliver swifter justice for victims, but if you will allow me a slight detour, Madam Deputy Speaker, do we not also need to deliver swifter justice to victims of war crimes in Ukraine? What is the Government’s attitude now towards the International Criminal Court? I think he would agree that attacking a nuclear power station or civilians is a war crime, but will he ensure that it is a war crime to initiate a war of aggression?
Minister reply
I share the hon. Gentleman’s interest in this subject and it is a timely, if circuitous, question, because I was in The Hague yesterday, where I met the ICC chief prosecutor and the president of the court; as he Gentleman knows, the ICC is independent and it is for it to determine those issues. I think I was the first Justice Minister to go there, and I was clear that we will provide a package of support, including financial and technical assistance, to enable the office of the prosecutor to do its job. We will be co-ordinating with our allies and our key partners so that is a concerted effort. The message needs to go out to Putin and to every commander on the ground in Ukraine that if they follow illegal orders they will end up in the dock of a court in The Hague and potentially in prison.
Bob Blackman
Con
Harrow East
Question
I will resist the temptation to broaden questions about the statement still further.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. Will he confirm that the intention is to increase the thresholds each year in line with inflation, so that we do not get to the same position we are in now? If so, what factor of inflation will he include on an annual basis? Finally, what impact does he expect this measure to have on the youth courts?
Minister reply
I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. We do not plan to index the thresholds, but he makes a reasonable point. We will obviously need to keep them under regular review, but this is a big step change in the threshold and we will keep a close eye on the impact that inflation has on them. More broadly, he asks about the youth courts, which are a crucial part of the system. We are proposing a general uplift of 15% to magistrates courts fees, and the youth courts will be included in that uplift.
Vicky Foxcroft
Lab
Lewisham North
Question
Will the review of legal aid specifically look at how disabled people can enforce their rights under the Equality Act 2010?
Minister reply
The review does not specifically deal with that, but if the hon. Lady and other groups would like to make submissions to the review, I will ensure they are properly taken into account.
Question
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement about the increased funding of £135 million a year. Can he confirm that that extra funding will mean that more of my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme will be covered by legal aid, so that they will be able to exercise their legal rights and defend themselves if they are accused?
Minister reply
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should never forget that as important as the legal profession is—we have all paid tribute to its members—the legal and justice system is there for my hon. Friend’s constituents and those of hon. Members across the House; for victims, witnesses and the public at large.
Barnsley South
Question
Criminal legal aid issues have become particularly acute in Barnsley in the last few days because the roof of Sheffield magistrates court has fallen in, meaning that defendants are queueing up in Barnsley. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that this a damning indictment of the legal system under his Government?
Minister reply
Of course we will look at all courts with maintenance issues, but in reality record investment in magistrates courts has been secured in this spending review. We have increased the sentencing powers of the magistrates courts from six to 12 months, and we are further supporting the practitioners who serve those courts with the measures we have announced today.
Jerome Mayhew
Con
Broadland and Fakenham
Question
Sir Christopher Bellamy’s review of criminal legal aid was based on two overriding principles: that remuneration of criminal lawyers should be such as to attract the right legal talent that the system requires, and that there should be equality of arms so that the resources available to defence are broadly similar to those available to prosecution. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those are the right principles for civil legal aid as well as criminal legal aid?
Minister reply
The criminal legal aid system is different from the civil legal aid system, but the overarching principles and the need to ensure access to justice are common to both. That is why under the means test review we have ensured not only that 3.5 million more people will have access to criminal legal aid in the magistrates courts, but that 2 million more will have access to civil legal aid, which I hope addresses my hon. Friend’s concern.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Question
Welcoming the Secretary of State's statement, Jim Shannon inquires if Northern Ireland can apply similar improvements to policing and justice. He also asks for assurance that those needing legal aid will now get it.
Minister reply
Dominic Raab responds by stating that proposals apply only to England and Wales, respecting devolved competences. He assures that there is a two-way dialogue with all parties in Northern Ireland regarding justice issues.
Karl Turner
Lab
Kingston upon Hull East
Question
Karl Turner, declaring his interest as a former criminal solicitor and barrister, praises the previous Justice Secretary for appointing Sir Christopher. He criticises the current government's underestimation of expenditure on the criminal legal aid review by 80% and questions how the government can prevent industrial action from the Criminal Bar given their lack of confidence in the Justice Secretary.
Minister reply
Dominic Raab rebuts Karl Turner, referring to him as a shop steward for unwarranted industrial action and criticising his tone. He expresses hope that the Criminal Bar Association will adopt a more constructive approach, acknowledging Sir Christopher's work and endorsing the government’s acceptance of his proposals.
Shadow Comment
Afzal Khan
Shadow Comment
While welcoming the commitment to a 15% increase in legal aid rates, Afzal Khan emphasises that urgent investment is necessary not only in criminal but also civil legal aid. He criticises the Government for failing to address a decade of underfunding and argues that the reforms are too little, too late given the serious recruitment and retention crisis within the profession. Khan highlights the drastic reduction in legal aid spending since 2012 and warns that the proposed measures will not fix advice deserts across the UK, threatening access to justice for many.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.