| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.17 pm
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford, South): Like my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), I am not a lawyer and I have not been involved with the legal profession. Therefore, it was with some trepidation that I decided to become involved in the debate. I am aware that many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are lawyers. However, the debate has been fascinating. Niceties have been exchanged across the Chamber. Hierarchical structures become apparent as right hon. and hon. Members refer to their professional roles. I am pleased that I have the opportunity to bring some reality to the debate.
It may surprise many in the legal profession that there is less respect for them than for politicians. Those in this place who are lawyers should beware for the future.
The Bill is vital because it will bring change. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby said, it will bring about progress. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will not be surprised that I intend to concentrate on one aspect of it because I have seen him on numerous occasions with colleagues from many organisations who are concerned about the standards and regulation of solicitors. I have been happy to hear what has been said about the supervision of solicitors, but much more needs to be done.
I put on record my thanks to Dr. Paul Edwards, who has assisted me in providing evidence of complaints against solicitors. I have been able to highlight various concerns to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. His organisation and others have campaigned effectively on the supervision of solicitors.
The main thrust of the Bill is to improve the standard of service that is provided by the legal profession. That is vital. It is a recurring theme that the Lord Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Minister have emphasised at a number of meetings with the profession. I do not recognise the charge that was made against my hon. Friend about not consulting the legal profession. I have been present at a number of meetings in the area of Bradford that I represent where he has met representatives of the Law Society and other representatives of the legal profession. At those meetings, he has presented robustly the need for change. The case has been well received by many of the organisations representing the legal profession, even though there are concerns about exactly what needs to be done.
The attainment and maintenance of acceptable professional standards requires an effective regulation mechanism. As has been said on both sides of the House, there is concern about the regulation of solicitors. Letters have flowed, parliamentary questions have been tabled
and generally people have made their concerns known. The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors was intended to replace the discredited bureau dealing with complaints against solicitors. It came into existence in September 1996, when complaints against solicitors were running at about 22,000 a year. By March 1998, the figure had increased to 35,000. By February 1999, it had reached 40,000. The OSS's recent quarterly report showed that it had failed to meet most of its targets. That has led the legal services ombudsman--who happens to be a woman--to warn that she will have to report that the OSS has failed to make the necessary progress. Her report will be released in June. I was pleased to hear the Minister's comments in that regard today.
Other indicators show that all is not well with the regulation of solicitors. The Home Office has identified solicitors' involvement in legal aid immigration rackets--an issue which we discussed last month in the context of the Immigration and Asylum Bill. Home Office Ministers have warned solicitors about their involvement in such activities. The National Criminal Intelligence Service has investigated the involvement of firms of solicitors in organised crime, particularly money laundering, and there are many other factual instances of substantial wrongdoing on the part of solicitors.
Self-regulation does not work, and I am heartened by the move to give stronger powers to the legal services ombudsman. However, I am slightly confused as to how that will relate to the continuing work of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. I hope that the Minister will explain in more detail how that relationship will develop in future. I recognise that the Law Society has advanced plans for radical change, but the OSS has been discredited. I do not attack the individuals within that office who have tried to establish an MP hotline and to provide further information. However, they have suffered from a lack of funding and support.
We must also examine the work of the legalservices ombudsman. The ombudsman has ignored recommendations in the past, and matters have taken a long time to reach the ombudsman. I hope that the Minister will consider tonight and in Committee the workings of those organisations that have produced many cases where people have been failed by their solicitors.
There has been no mention of the solicitors indemnity fund--I know that that issue does not relate directly to the Bill, but it affects people's confidence in solicitors--and the failings in that area. I became involved in the case of my constituent who was selling her home in order to buy a business in Scotland. Her solicitor did the conveyancing and ultimately produced a £4,000 cheque for my constituent. She thought that that sum was far in excess of the amount to which she was entitled and wrote to the solicitor about her concerns. The solicitor replied to say that the details had been checked and that she was entitled to the £4,000. My constituent took the cheque and invested it in her new business in Scotland.
Three months later, my constituent received a letter to say that there had been a mistake and that the solicitor was owed £4,000. The solicitor took the matter to the solicitors indemnity fund, which paid him the £4,000 that he was owed and then hired him to reclaim the debt from my constituent. That cannot be right, and I know of many other horrific stories like that.
We want to raise standards in the profession and ensure that people can have confidence in the legal system. I hope that my hon. Friends will consider those matters. As I have said, there have been numerous meetings and Ministers have listened intently to the views of Dr. Edwards and others. I hope that the Minister will provide some details about how the process will work in practice. If it does not work effectively, ordinary people will not have confidence in the legal system.
I am pleased that the community legal service is tobe established. I add my support to hon. Members' comments about citizens advice bureaux and law centres. The law centre in Bradford has done excellent work over the years and supported many good causes. Community legal services enable ordinary people to have confidence in solicitors. Most people think that solicitors' services will cost them a fortune and do not wish to lodge legal aid applications because they do not understand the mysterious system.
I welcome the positive attitude that the Minister and others have displayed towards the role that trade unions and trade union schemes can play in legal matters. As an ex-trade union official, I have seen members benefit over many years from the excellent work of trade union schemes. There are many excellent trade union lawyers on this side of the House who have done some tremendous work.
Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon):
I declare an interest in the debate as a solicitor who has been in practice for 20 years and specialised in personal injury work--mainly for trade unions. However, I am not taking any cases now as I do not think that I can do so practically while continuing to represent my constituents properly in this place. I was also an assessor for the Law Society specialist personal injury panel, and I remain a member of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers executive committee. I welcome the significant reforms in the Bill, which amount to some of the biggest changes in the civil justice system for decades. Some of my former colleagues may view me as poacher and gamekeeper, but I believe that it is my job to speak not for lawyers but for my constituents and the general public.
Much of the debate so far has focused on the funding of litigation, especially personal injury cases, and I suspect has turned off many in the outside world who view it as lawyers' special pleading. As I wish to raise several other issues, I shall say very little about that. While I have some reservations about legal aid, I therefore welcome the reform of conditional fee funding--especially the requirement for unsuccessful defendants to meet the cost of success fees and insurance premiums.
Research into conditional fees was conducted recently. A survey conducted by BDO Stoy Haywood in February 1999 found that the outlook was optimistic. It revealed not just the 98 per cent. success rate of conditional fee agreements so far, but that a majority of the firms surveyed expected CFAs to be more profitable than traditional funding methods over the next three years.
Many of the fears within the profession are probably unjustified. The survey identified a fear factor among small firms that can be overcome with appropriate training and education.
I successfully took to the House of Lords a speculative funding case against the previous Government, and I welcome the Government's decision to end the uncertainty over speculative funding. However, I hope that they will go further and abolish entirely the arcane and outdated indemnity principle, which is nothing more than a restraint on fair competition in civil litigation. I believe that its end would undoubtedly lead to a freer market for legal services and better deals for lawyers' customers--especially bulk purchasers.
If we are serious about looking out for the interests of the public, not the lawyers, we must tackle one of the main causes of high expenditure on big cases: the Queen's Counsel system. While I welcome the transfer of costs of administering the system to the profession, that is only the start of reforming--and preferably abolishing--the QC system. It will not have escaped the Minister's notice that more than 100 Members of Parliament have signed the early-day motion calling for the abolition of that anachronistic distinction.
The QC system operates not in the public interest but at its expense. Double manning remains rife. Although the Bar claims that the title "QC" is equivalent to a certificate of excellence, everyone knows that that is nonsense. There are good, bad and indifferent QCs, just as there are good, bad and indifferent people in every profession. If it were a proper accreditation arrangement, the silk system would have transparent assessments against objective criteria rather than the old-boy network, which, despite the best endeavours of the Lord Chancellor, maintains an inherent bias on the grounds of race, gender and age. Despite the substantial change in his or her practice facing a new QC, there is no probationary period, monitoring, appraisal, continuing education requirements or complaints procedure. Many silks draw all or most of their substantial earnings from public funds, yet there are no means of judging whether the client or taxpayer gets value for money.
I suggest to my hon. Friend that if the silk system is to continue, the public sector should recognise the volume of work it gives to QCs. I suspect that more than half of the work for silks is funded through legal aid, the Crown Prosecution Service, Government agencies and Departments, the national health service or local government. With some creative thinking, the Government could use that substantial purchasing power to negotiate more realistic fee levels. We know that QCs earn up to £600,000 before they are appointed, and their earnings increase substantially after that. While some QCs give generously of their time, many do not. I do not think it is unfair to expect a QC to do some work pro bono as a requirement of appointment. That would enable some of those who are less well off and who cannot afford the services of a QC to benefit from their expertise.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |