Oral Answers to Questions Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Ministry of Justice

Oral Answers to Questions

George Hollingbery Excerpts
Tuesday 2nd July 2013

(10 years, 10 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Wright Portrait Jeremy Wright
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The hon. Lady will not be surprised to learn that I do not agree with her. This is an important and urgent reform. She must recognise that every single year 600,000 offences are committed by people who have previously committed an offence. Until we start to address reoffending effectively, that number will not come down and we will not avoid the creation of tens of thousands of new victims every year. That is why this is urgent. As far as I understand the position of the hon. Lady’s party, she agrees that reoffending rates are too high, that something must be done about that and that there is a problem with the group with sentences under 12 months, yet we hear nothing from her about what she would do about that if it was not what we propose to do. If she has an alternative, let us hear it.

George Hollingbery Portrait George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)
- Hansard - -

7. What assessment he has made of the effect on barristers of his proposed changes to legal aid.

Chris Grayling Portrait The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Our analysis, based on applying our proposals to the cases handled by the Legal Aid Agency last year, suggests that overall the majority of criminal advocates would either be better off or see their income unchanged as a result of the fee proposals, while civil barristers affected, who generally receive higher fees than other civil advocates, could see their income reduced.

George Hollingbery Portrait George Hollingbery
- Hansard - -

Could the proposals not have been centred around a fixed-fee per case, salami-slicing budget cuts across the board or restructuring? Will not this arrangement protect the incomes of lower paid barristers?

Chris Grayling Portrait Chris Grayling
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That was part of our objective. Some people argued that we should go for one case, one fee, but that would in my view do deep long-term—if not total—damage to the Bar. We chose not to go down that route. We have put together a package of proposals that, on the basis of the case mix carried out last year by junior barristers, should leave a substantial proportion of them either with an unchanged income or a slightly increased income.