| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Kevan Jones: I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point about access to justice, but why should people in rural communities get a second-class service because their firm of solicitors is a cosy family firm with no expertise in some matters? I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is wrong that solicitors say, “I’m sorry, but I’m not expert in this, so can you go somewhere else?” Instead, they take cases on, and people who do not understand the way in which solicitors operate think that they are getting a good service when they clearly are not. The hon. Gentleman is deluding himself if he thinks that small family firms in rural communities are turning people away when they do not have relevant expertise. They take the cases on and the clients become disappointed in the long term when they find that they are getting a poor service.
Simon Hughes: It is impossible to generalise on this issue.
Simon Hughes: I am not generalising at all. There are some extremely good local firms of solicitors that deal competently with the work with which they can deal and take on work that others might not because of their loyalty to a community and its residents. Such solicitors will often and perfectly reasonably send off work that they are not competent to carry out to a colleague or another firm. There may be firms—I am sure there are—that seek to do work that they are not competent to do. What I know is this: if small firms are faced with competition from a catch-all company that does everything—insuring clients from the cradle to the grave and providing legal services for everything, allegedly—that underprices and takes the business, the result will be that some of those firms are no longer viable. When those smaller firms have gone, if the big international provider decides not to have an outlet in that village, town or city, there is nothing to take its place.
That is the danger of the predatory market and it is the reason why, in a capitalist society, checks and balances are always necessary. That is why, in this debate, the big issue is what the correct balances are. Yes, we need a more customer-oriented, consumer-oriented service; but, no, we do not need an untrammelled free market that suddenly says that everybody can come, irrespective of tradition, practice, competence and so on. Let us proceed carefully—the amendments made in the Lords allow us to do that. They do not prevent alternative business structures; instead, they say that we should proceed carefully and in a way that protects the best and protects access to justice. That is the test. This is a justice Bill and the outcome should be judged by whether it gives best access to justice and legal services in the smallest villages and the biggest cities in our land.
5.51 pm
Mr. Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich, West) (Lab/Co-op):
I start by declaring an interest: I am not a lawyer, but I am a Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament. Given that some parts of the Bill have been described as “Co-op law” or “Tesco law”, I think it
only right to bring my association with and support for the co-operative movement to the notice of the House.
I welcome the Bill, but I would like to comment on the process hitherto. Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that the consultation process has been very thorough, and I think that part of the reason for that agreement across the House is that the majority of participants in the debate have a legal connection. The ad hoc Committee comprised—not entirely, but largely—people with legal backgrounds. Not all but most of those who contributed to the debate in the other place have legal backgrounds, and so far a high proportion of those who have contributed to today’s debate have legal backgrounds, or have operated with non-legal qualifications.
Mr. Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that if a piece of trade union legislation was going through Parliament and the debate was packed with people who were trade union members or Co-operative Members, the press would be full of condemnation about vested interests?
Mr. Bailey: My hon. Friend makes an important and valuable point, which underlines my next observation, which is that had the consultation process been so dominated by representatives of consumer organisations, we might have a rather different Bill and heard different comments today. Notwithstanding the praise that has been given, we have to recognise that overall, the debate has been legally driven and legally dominated. It is interesting that those who have been so complimentary toward the ad hoc Committee are largely solicitors and lawyers who agree with those who participated in the Committee. The amendments that have been accepted are those that were proposed by them, and they have been complimented by them.
My perspective is that of a non-lawyer consumer. Listening to the debate, I have at times felt like an atheist at a Council of Churches debate, because the nature of this debate has been arcane and sometimes almost theological. I do not pretend to understand all the arcane structures and processes of the legal services industry, but I have a general understanding, from a consumer’s perspective, of how that industry appears not to be meeting the needs and concerns of the general public. I hesitated to speak at first, but then I thought that, as a representative of constituents who are mainly on low incomes and do not readily run to the courts, I am perhaps better placed, and in some respects better qualified, to participate than are some others.
My constituents have little confidence in the law. There is a pervading suspicion of lawyers, and given the cases that have been brought to me, I can understand that. That feeling was reinforced in me three or four years ago, during the Carter review of legal aid, when I was asked to attend a meeting of solicitors in Birmingham. When I got there, I was stuck on a chair in front of a great group of solicitors and told that the big issue in my constituency was the absence of legal aid. I was puzzled, and my response to that statement was fairly robust. I said that I had been an MP for four or five years and had held hundreds of surgeries, but not one person had come to me to complain about the inability to get legal aid. However,
many people had come to me to complain about the services that they had received from solicitors. Needless to say, that did not go down too well. What struck me was the ability of the profession to redefine self-interest as public interest. That experience clearly demonstrated to me how exclusive the profession was, and how it perceived the outside world.
As I see it, there are two big issues: first, lack of accountability, and secondly, cost. Reference has been made to the number of complaints that have been dealt with unsatisfactorily by the Bar Council and the Law Society. One third of Bar Council complaints ended up with the ombudsman, as did more than 17,000 complaints made to the Law Society. There is a general feeling that complaints are being judged and determined by members of the legal profession, and that they run a closed shop. Looking at the number of complaints and given the prevailing perception that there is little point in complaining, I cannot help but wonder how many complaints there would be if we had a process that commanded public trust.
Mr. Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest problems is that many people do not know how to complain about the poor service that they get from some solicitors?
Mr. Bailey: I agree absolutely. Many people in areas such as the one that I represent want as little as possible to do with solicitors. They do not know how to complain and they do not believe that they will get value for money, so they avoid solicitors.
The one time when the great majority have some association with the legal profession is, of course, when they buy a house. I shall not bore the House by repeating the litany of complaints that I have heard about the service that people have had from solicitors carrying out conveyancing on their houses. I am sure that other hon. Members have had similar experiences. I would summarise the complaints by saying that they relate to slowness, lack of response to telephone calls, and indifference to the stress of purchasing a house and to the implications of slowness on the part of the legal profession. I am the first to accept that there are many dedicated solicitors who take a professional approach, but overall the perception is that there is a culture within the profession that is not responsive or accountable.
There has been a lot of debate about the independence of the legal services board. Other key regulatory organisations—the Financial Services Authority and the Office of Fair Trading, among others—have independent chairmen appointed by the Lord Chancellor or by other members of the Government. The funny thing is that when the appointment is made, the debate is always about whether the chairman will be independent, but once the person is appointed, the nature of the debate usually changes. We start hearing people complain, “Why don’t the Government interfere in the decisions being taken by that independent organisation?” That is a reflection of the fact that the process is legitimate, robust and can be trusted.
I shall talk briefly about whether regulation should be light-touch or heavy-handed. In an ideal world, we would want light-touch regulation, and that is appropriate when there are regulatory organisations that function appropriately. However, if they are not functioning appropriately, light-touch regulation is no good. There has to be the capacity to be more intrusive if the regulatory bodies do not deliver according to their purpose. Although I certainly subscribe to the principle that regulation should be light-touch, it must also be appropriate. I hope that when the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice), devises the regulations, there will be a process to make sure that the level of regulation is appropriate to the effectiveness of the organisation being regulated.
Another issue to consider is cost, which in turn is affected by competition. That brings me on to the so-called alternative business structures. I have never understood why only lawyers can employ other lawyers; that strikes me as the ultimate in restrictive practices. To take up and extend a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), if that practice was applied in other contexts—for example, in relation to trade unions—there would be a reaction against it. It is quite possible for single practices, or groups of practices, comprising excellent lawyers to have a deficient business organisation. A practice that delivers a very good legal service might carry out that service in a far more cost-effective manner if it were organised differently and were subject to more business discipline—and that way, it would get far more public support.
I have listened to the objections to the alternative business structures, and they fall into a number of categories. One objection is that companies will cherry-pick cases. Looking back to the Carter review, and issues to do with the cost of legal aid, the argument for extending funding for legal aid, and against some of the Carter proposals, was that companies were cherry-picking and were no longer providing legal aid, and legal aid deserts were being created. These issues are by no means new. I would argue that opening up the profession to competition from other organisations will force companies to look again at their business practices and to deliver a service more effectively and cheaply, thereby possibly making legal aid more profitable. Of course, that would enable other organisations with tried and tested business practices to use them to deliver the same service more cheaply. The point needs to be made that there are organisations, such as those in the co-operative movement, that have found a market niche through ethical trading and targeting communities that have hitherto been marginalised or excluded. If those organisations took part in providing legal services, it is hardly likely that they would adopt the practices that some hon. Members have criticised.
I agree that the change will have to be monitored. Obviously, whenever a market is opened up competitive advantages arise, but there is scope for abuse too, and there must be a monitoring process that ensures that we benefit from competition and do not lose out. However, on balance, I think that the change will be a force for good. It will act as a business discipline on a range of solicitors and lawyers who have hitherto never had to consider the issues that we are discussing.
Another objection concerns the conflict of interest between shareholder return and quality legal services. I do not understand how anybody working for a big corporation could have a more direct interest in enhancing shareholder value than a lawyer working on his or her own, or in a partnership, in terms of the profitability of the company. There is a far greater relationship between profitability and the individual for lawyers working on their own, or in a partnership, than there is for lawyers who work for a large organisation, which may be a public limited company. Under the current framework, there is far more incentive for individuals to maximise their profit at the expense of quality legal services.
I conclude by acknowledging the contribution that many good lawyers make, and I accept that many members of the profession are dedicated to the public good and work for a relatively low income on behalf of the public. However, there is a culture that prevails in the profession that is at odds with that dedication, and it fails to project the real value that some solicitors bring. The Bill, by enhancing the complaints procedure and reinforcing trust in the profession, will go an enormous way towards dealing with that. It should not only create more confidence, but enable more people to access legal services. As is the case with alternative business structures, legal services could well be provided by organisations that are skilled in developing markets, and which have access to constituencies that solicitors currently do not provide for. There is a real prospect that more people, with greater confidence in the profession, will use those services. If they do, they will enhance the industry, not just for themselves, but for the whole profession. When a complaints procedure that reinforces public confidence is combined with a business structure that gives people more options when selecting who provides their legal services, there will ultimately be a positive impact on the profession, and on the public.
6.9 pm
Mr. David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): I proudly declare an interest as a practising solicitor. I do not apologise for being a solicitor, even though some Labour Members seem to suggest that one should. Lawyers are an integral part of society. It is easy to criticise them until we need their services. For 12 years I have been a legal aid lawyer, defending those on benefits or on income levels below that—people on the margins of society. After those 12 years, I believe I have a useful contribution to make about the impact of the Bill on those consumers and others, and I shall impart that to the House.
John Mann: Given the hon. Gentleman’s commendable introduction, does he agree that robust regulation of those who do not meet the standards to which he aspires and which, I am sure, he meets is required to protect the good name of solicitors like him?
Mr. Burrowes:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The essence of the Bill, and the concern of the Opposition, is that any regulation which the hon. Gentleman might call robust is not so overbearing that it gets in the way and undermines the confidence of clients such as those whom I have represented in their
battles with the state. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would be on their side, and they would not want a regulatory body under the influence of an overbearing state.
During the debate, references to the legal profession have conveyed the assumption, implied or explicit, that there is some overarching conflict of interest between lawyers and consumers. The Minister seemed to be pitting consumers against the legal profession. One should rise above that kind of debate. The Joint Committee was well served by lawyers, but in the limited time available had extensive consultation with consumer groups and the like. I hope not to make the same easy mistake.
The essence of the Bill, for consumers and lawyers alike, is independence and trust in public authorities, Ministers and politicians. When Ministers give assurances about independence, they should take heed of the latest opinion survey. On trustworthiness, Ministers were rated just above car salesmen, and lawyers were more highly rated than Ministers. It is worth noting that when one listens to what some lawyers say.
The theme of my remarks and of many representations is independence, which takes many forms. Provisions to safeguard independence were inserted in the Bill after strong representations from the Joint Committee. That raises suspicions in my mind and in the mind of others that the Government have begrudgingly recognised independence as the mark of the legal profession in our society. It is important that the legal services board should be demonstrably independent of Government. That matters less for lawyers than for the public. It also matters for professional confidence in the regulation of legal services.
Mr. Kevan Jones: I agree entirely that the legal services board should be independent of Government. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it should also be independent of the legal profession?
Mr. Burrowes: The hon. Gentleman is correct that the issue is independence, but it depends how one defines “legal profession”. I shall come on to the process of appointment.
We have heard references to the miners and to other individuals. Those citizens, those consumers, are dependent on lawyers when they are in conflict with the state, and they need the assurance and the confidence that they have a lawyer whom they can trust and who is ethically sound and competent. We have all heard of those who are not, but we must support and promote those who are ethical and competent, and they must be regulated by a body that is independent of the state. Such confidence is crucial for the litigation that takes place every day of the week.
This morning I was at Stevenage magistrates court, where a client was benefiting from confidence in the independence of his lawyer. It was of great significance to that person, who had been arrested for an offence and charged and was appearing in court. At a late stage of his trial it became apparent that the identification parade that formed the basis of the case against him was undermined by the fact that the photograph of him had been shown to a witness prior to the identification parade. In that case a diligent lawyer had
been working hard up to the final hour of the trial to expose that point, which led to the case being discontinued. No doubt the defendant appreciated the independence of that lawyer in his contest with the state in the form of the Crown Prosecution Service.
Mr. Kevan Jones: If that individual had not got the good service that the hon. Gentleman describes and was dissatisfied with the service that he had received from his lawyer in that case, does the hon. Gentleman think that he would have a great deal of confidence if he knew that the body to which he could complain included solicitors or other legal professionals?
Mr. Burrowes: I support the Bill and the intention to establish a one-stop shop for legal complaints. That would provide integrity and ensure that complaints that had not been followed through correctly in the past—we have heard many stories about those—will be better dealt with. That is why I support many of the principles underlying the Bill. The independence of the legal profession is the cornerstone of the rule of law. That is worth repeating, even though the Minister was not keen to extol it.
When one considers the structures proposed in the Bill, one needs to see where that independence is guaranteed. First, the chair of the legal services board will be a lay person. If the defendant at Stevenage were aware of that, he would no doubt be pleased that the chairman was not a lawyer. It is a clear indication that lawyers will not dominate the regulatory structure.
John Mann: I am rather confused about the direction in which the hon. Gentleman is going by suggesting that the Bill is against the independence of solicitors acting in court. Could he assist me by giving an example of a legal appointment made by the Lord Chancellor that he regards as not independent?
Mr. Burrowes: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall come to the process and give some examples of the Government not handling lawyers in a different way from accountants and other professionals when they should do so.
Is the legal services board independent? I hope the hon. Gentleman and others would agree that the Government are not universally trusted in respect of the appointment process. A survey on whether the Government are trusted with appointments would reveal some reservations. It is not universally accepted that they are the appropriate authority. The Government should be primarily involved in legal appointments, but such appointments should be made with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice. Why should the Lord Chief Justice not be involved, to ensure a degree of independence? The criticism that is made is that he is just another lawyer.
Mr. Kevan Jones: That is a fair point, but will the hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that the legal services ombudsman, who is a lay person, is appointed by the Lord Chancellor? Is he saying that the profession has no confidence in that appointment?
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |