Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lucy Frazer and Ian C. Lucas

Thursday 23rd May 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend has mentioned the work of Advocate, which used to be called the Bar pro bono unit. As a barrister, I was pleased to volunteer for the unit. In fact, more than 3,500 barristers are now registered as volunteers for Advocate and, like my hon. Friend, I would encourage Members to refer cases to it. I do so as a constituency MP. I know that Advocate, among others, is involved in the planning of this year’s Pro Bono Week, which will commence on 4 November.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

I welcome the Solicitor General to her new position. Solicitors and barristers in towns up and down the country can provide pro bono advice, as I did when I was in practice as a solicitor, only if the practices are there. There is real pressure on the provision of advice in desert areas, because private sector firms are going out of business. What is she going to do about this?

[The Solicitor General]

I am pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman also did pro bono work; he is to be commended for that. As he will know, the Ministry of Justice is carrying out a review of the market at the moment. There are some areas in which there are not as many law firms offering legal aid as there could be, but that review is already being undertaken.

Courts IT System

Debate between Lucy Frazer and Ian C. Lucas

Wednesday 23rd January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

Of course, where there are particular concerns in any particular court, I am happy to look at them. If the hon. Lady would like to write to me or meet me, I would be happy to discuss any particular concerns.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

The Minister says that she wants the user at the heart of the system. Under this Government, Wrexham in north-east Wales is run by an administrator in Llanelli in south-west Wales. That has led to our having a magistrates court without any cells—the equivalent of a pub without any beer—and the result is that the users have to go to a different town. All of this is as a result of Ministry of Justice incompetence. How can we have confidence in the administration of the justice system when this sort of chaos is an everyday occurrence?

[Lucy Frazer]

A number of people, such as the hon. Gentleman, have referred to court closures. In circumstances where 41% of our courts were used at less than half their available capacity last year, it is incumbent on a Government to look at where they should use their resources and where they should use their resources well. All money from court closures goes back into the courts system, and we ensure that the money is spent and spent well on our justice system.

Criminal Legal Aid

Debate between Lucy Frazer and Ian C. Lucas

Tuesday 8th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his intervention and recognition that this scheme was wanted. I hope I have conveyed that the Lord Chancellor and I recognise that where there are difficulties in the criminal justice system we will seek to ensure that we have the best possible criminal justice system and legal system. The scheme, which we are voting on today, is the right scheme going forward. The proposal that it should be revoked and annulled is disadvantageous to the Bar and is simply politics.

[Ian C. Lucas]

Why then does the Minister think the barristers are taking action?

[Lucy Frazer]

The hon. Gentleman will have to ask the barristers why they are taking action, because the new scheme is more favourable.

The consultation was broadly welcomed by the organisations I mentioned earlier. I would like to provide just one quote among many. When the consultation was put forward in 2017, the then chair of the Bar Council said:

“The suggested scheme is a fairer way of rewarding advocates for their work”,

and that it is a

“a positive example of the Ministry of Justice participating in constructive dialogue with the profession”.

As with any consultation, suggestions were made to improve the scheme. It was said, for example, that it was not right that the initial scheme proposed was to be cost-neutral as against 2014-15. Concerns were also raised that it may have an adverse impact on junior advocates. The Ministry of Justice listened to those concerns and increased the amount in the scheme in line with the costs at the time, which increased the funding by £9 million. This allowed it to improve the scheme for junior advocates. The MOJ also assesses that the scheme will cost significantly more—approximately £9 million more—than anticipated.

The new scheme in this statutory instrument is better than the one it replaces. With this motion, which calls for the new scheme to be revoked, the hon. Member for Leeds East is disadvantaging those he professes to support. He says that it is a threat to our justice system, but the motion is playing politics. It puts party politics above supporting the right outcome. With the motion, the Labour party and those who intend to join them today are using the Bar and justice as a political tool for their own ends.