Sarah Russell

“I thank the Government for the considerable progress that has been made on criminal legal aid and other matters within the estimates since we have taken office. The courts system, as we have heard, was in the most dilapidated and decrepit state, and we had a dearth of judge recruitment between 2010 and 2018. The net result was that the entire justice system was on its knees. In that context, the 10% uplift in legal aid expenditure over two years was long overdue. I will ask the Minister a couple of questions. There have been significant problems with the Legal Aid Agency’s IT systems. Those problems are increasingly in hand, but it appears from House of Commons Library papers that there is a 75% reduction in capital spend at the Legal Aid Agency over the coming period. It is not clear to me whether that reporting is accurate or perhaps not right, because there is a proposal to spend significant money on the Legal Aid Agency’s IT systems, and I do not see how that would not fit within the capital estimates. It would be helpful if the Minister could report back, either today or to the Justice Committee subsequently, on how that has come about. The disparity seems extremely large. The entire system is still creaking heavily. In an environment in which we know that there may have to be further cuts to other Departments to fund the defence investment that is required, we must remember that the Ministry of Justice has experienced cuts not just since 2010, but since 1997. Legal aid rates have gone up by £1 an hour since 1997, with the exception of the areas that the Government have put up—it is only some of them—since we took office. The result is that legal aid in general is in hugely difficult circumstances, and we see the net effect of that in the number of people representing themselves in the courts. I have asked in Justice Committee sittings whether there has been an evaluation of the impact on court backlogs of unrepresented litigants in person. I have asked what assessment has been made of the difference they make to trial times in the criminal and civil courts, and therefore the potential implications for the backlogs in those courts. At the moment, the backlog stands at 350,000 in the magistrates court, and the figure is commonly reported to be 80,000 for the Crown court. The MOJ has not been able to give us those figures, and it cannot say that that assessment has been done. It is speculative to suggest that people not having a lawyer—and large numbers of them do not—is increasing the courts backlog, because we just do not have the figures. In an environment in which every penny counts, and in which spending that money extremely efficiently is vital, it seems a significant omission not to have at least reviewed whether moving up the criteria for entitlement to legal aid significantly might change the dimensions of the court backlog, as all of us want to see. The nature of the current entitlement is that someone with a total household income of £37,000 or more in the Crown court—they could be facing trial for rape or all kinds of serious offences—would not be entitled to legal aid. I think most members of the public would be shocked that if they were accused of a crime of that gravity, they would get no legal aid if their household income—potentially from two adults—came to more than that. In 1970, about 28 million people in this country were eligible for legal aid. The figure today would be infinitely smaller. I completely accept that we cannot simply flood money into a system when we do not have that money and when it would not be responsible. There is also the risk that we create waste if we suddenly flush money into a system not set up to accommodate it. I understand why the Government are taking a staged approach, but I should like us to ensure that we are exploring all the potential ways of reducing the Crown court backlog. At present there are some contentious proposals on the table, some of which I do not support. It is pleasing to note that Andy Burnham—”