| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.30 pm
Mr. Kidney: I shall not detain the House for long. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his position and wish him a long and distinguished career in government. I also declare a slight interest as a non-practising solicitor, as mentioned in the Register of Members' Interests.
I welcome the new clauses. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) mentioned last week's meeting with the director of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. I was there too, so I know that it was a very cosy meeting. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked for evidence to support the late tabling of the amendments and asked why they could not have been drafted earlier.
It is certainly a breaking story that the Law Society is proving unable to deal with the number of complaints that are made against professionals. We must first go back to the OSS report for the 16 months to the end of December last year. It shows the staggering fact that just over 75,000 solicitors generated more than 44,000 new matters for the OSS to deal with. At the time of the Standing Committee, we heard the rumour that the ombudsman's report this year would say that the OSS was not coping with the present level of new complaints. This week sees the publication of the Ernst and Young report that was commissioned by the Law Society, which paints the chilling picture that the OSS is receiving more new complaints than it is resolving old ones, so there is a great crisis in the handling of complaints.
I have personal experience in my constituency of the dissatisfied complainant. Although there are not huge numbers of complaints about solicitors in Stafford, we certainly have a persistent complainant who showed me an example of very poor complaint handling by the predecessor of the OSS and the previous ombudsman.
It is important to give members of the public--that is who the complainants are--confidence in solicitors as a profession. They must feel that complaints are dealt with properly and that the Law Society is accountable for dealing with them.
Some of my hon. Friends have tabled an early-day motion in which they seek statutory regulation of the legal profession. They say that there is too great a conflict of interests for the Law Society to deal with complaints. I do not share their view that the Law Society is in some way collaborating with the OSS to support solicitors and do down complainants. In fact, the Ernst and Young report shows that the Law Society has walked away from the OSS, taking its guarantee of independence far too strongly and leaving it to its own devices and unable to cope with the demand on its services. If there is a criticism to be made of the Law Society, it is that it has taken too little interest in, and under-resourced, the OSS.
I welcome the threat that the new clauses present to the Law Society--telling it to put in order complaints against solicitors. As the hon. and learned Member for Harborough said, a small minority of solicitors are producing a large number of complaints. The Ernst and Young report talks of 1 per cent. of all solicitors producing 10 per cent. of complaints. If that is what it takes, there should be a sword of Damocles hanging over solicitors--that they will pay a penalty for failing to deal with complaints and will pay for the commissioner coming in to impose a system for dealing with complaints in a timely manner.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on introducing the new clauses. I hope that members of the Law Society will recognise that they are certainly in the last chance saloon. This is their last opportunity to clean up their act and deal with complaints in the way that we and every member of the public would expect them to.
Mr. Vaz:
Having wished me a long and distinguished ministerial career, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) has made me redundant. He eloquently put the case that I intended to make, so I really do not have to speak for very long. Having said that, in parliamentary terms that means that I will speak for just a little longer.
Things are getting worse. The backlog is now 9,000, it takes six months to allocate a case, and new cases are arising at the rate of 90 a week. It is right that, in the first instance, we should leave it to the Law Society and the professional bodies to regulate themselves. The Government are sometimes accused, unfairly, by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) of seeking to take too many powers. The point is that we are not exercising this power because we believe that the Law Society ought to be left to put its own house in order. That is why we welcome the Ernst and Young report, which points a way for the Law Society. There is a commitment for the Law Society to spend an additional £5.7 million on this issue.
I appear to be the only person involved in the debate who was not at the meeting with Mr. Peter Ross. I feel left out and neglected. I say to the hon. and learned
Member for Harborough that he has done his bit in trying to publicise the work of the OSS. He was the host at the launch by the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors of a new hotline for Members of Parliament to ring, and he has been tenacious in his desire to ensure that these matters are publicised.
We can help members of the public by making sure that they know how to make their complaints. The commissioner--if he or she is appointed--will seek to help firms of solicitors put in place appropriate methods of handling complaints. Like the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, I have not had many constituents complaining to me about solicitors. I think that they go to other agencies to do that. However, they must be complaining to somebody, otherwise there would not be a backlog of 9,000. We are leaving the matter up to the Law Society. We are asking it to read the Ernst and Young report, which it commissioned, and to act on it. We want to work with the Law Society, and we will not compel it to do anything until we know what is happening. That is the right way forward.
It is right that the professional bodies should pay. They do not have to pay now, and they will not have to pay until the scheme is brought into effect. However, there are precedents for ombudsmen being paid for by those they seek to regulate. It is right that they should be in that position because they are the professional body dealing with those matters. They have a unique opportunity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford talked about drinking at the last chance saloon. I am a teetotaller, and I do not indulge in such activities. However, the Government want the Law Society to succeed. We desperately want the Law Society to make this work--for itself, for the reputation of our profession and for the public at large. We will give the Law Society the opportunity to succeed. If it wants us to help, it should come and talk to us. That is why I will see Mr. Ross in the near future. His role is important in trying to make sure that the problem is solved.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford said, we are doing this now because the report of the ombudsman is coming out soon. Frankly, this is an appropriate legislative vehicle. We cannot just magic out of Committee a new Bill to deal with one specific issue. This is an opportunity. The Lord Chancellor, who is a listening Lord Chancellor, has decided that he will not take the power now. There is to be an 18-month wait, and we will see how it goes. Matters will then be reported back to the House in the appropriate way.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
'. In paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (financial provisions relating to Legal Services Ombudsman), for sub-paragraph (1) (Ombudsman's expenses to be defrayed by Lord Chancellor) substitute--
"(1) The Lord Chancellor may require any professional body (within the meaning of section 22 of this Act) to make payments of such amount as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate to the Ombudsman towards meeting the expenditure incurred (or to be incurred) by him in the discharge of his functions.
(1A) To the extent that that expenditure is not met by payments under sub-paragraph (1), it shall be met by the Lord Chancellor out of money provided by Parliament.".'.--[Mr. Vaz.]
'.--(1) The Lord Chancellor may appoint a person as Legal Services Complaints Commissioner.
(2) Any appointment of a person as Commissioner shall be for a period of not more than three years; and a person appointed as Commissioner shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
(3) At the end of his term of appointment the Commissioner shall be eligible for re-appointment.
(4) The Commissioner shall not be an authorised advocate, authorised litigator, licensed conveyancer or authorised practitioner (within the meaning of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990) or a notary.
(5) Schedule (Legal Services Complaints Commissioner) (which makes further provision about the Commissioner) has effect.'.--[Mr. Vaz.]
'.--(1) If it appears to the Lord Chancellor that complaints about members of any professional body are not being handled effectively and efficiently, he may by direction require the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner to consider exercising in relation to the body such of the powers in subsection (2) as are specified in the direction.
(2) Those powers are--
(a) to require a professional body to provide information, or make reports, to the Commissioner about the handling of complaints about its members,
(b) to investigate the handling of complaints about the members of a professional body,
(c) to make recommendations in relation to the handling of complaints about the members of a professional body,
(d) to set targets in relation to the handling of complaints about the members of a professional body, and
(e) to require a professional body to submit to the Commissioner a plan for the handling of complaints about its members.
(3) Where the Commissioner requires a professional body to submit to him a plan for the handling of complaints about its members but the body--
(a) fails to submit to him a plan which he considers adequate for securing that such complaints are handled effectively and efficiently, or
(b) submits to him such a plan but fails to handle complaints in accordance with it,
he may require the body to pay a penalty.
(4) Before requiring a professional body to pay a penalty under subsection (3) the Commissioner shall afford it a reasonable opportunity of appearing before him to make representations.
(5) The Lord Chancellor shall by order made by statutory instrument specify the maximum amount of any penalty under subsection (3).
(6) In determining the amount of any penalty which a professional body is to be required to pay under subsection (3) the Commissioner shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including in particular--
(a) the total number of complaints about members of the body and, where the penalty is imposed in respect of a failure to handle complaints in accordance with a plan, the number of complaints not so handled, and
(b) the assets of the body and the number of its members.
(7) A penalty under subsection (3) shall be paid to the Commissioner who shall pay it to the Lord Chancellor.
(8) Where a direction under subsection (1) in relation to a professional body has been given (and not revoked), section 24(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (power of Legal Services Ombudsman to make recommendations about arrangements for investigation of complaints) shall not have effect in relation to the body.
(9) No order shall be made under subsection (5) unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(10) In this section "professional body" has the same meaning as in section 22 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.'.--[Mr. Vaz.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |