Legal Services Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 133: 133: Clause 133 , page 68, line 40, after ““scheme”” insert ““which are determined in favour (or substantially in favour) of the complainant”” The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to enshrine the ““polluter pays”” principle in the Bill. The amendment would provide that a respondent is required to pay charges under Clause 133 in respect of a complaint against him, only where the complaint is upheld, or substantially upheld. The Bill goes against the recommendations of Sir David Clementi’s report. As it stands, the supposed polluter is required to pay the cost of the complaint even if the complaint proves unfounded. This contravenes the Clementi proposal that payment should be made by, "““those against whom a complaint has been upheld””." It is manifestly unfair that those who are the subject of a complaint that is not upheld should be required to pay towards the cost of investigation. Let me illustrate the point with respect to junior members of the Bar with criminal and family practices. These are fields of practice in which unjustifiable complaints are constantly an occupational hazard. As the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, commented during Second Reading, "““It cannot stand up to any outside scrutiny that a man who has a false charge made against him has to pay [for] the costs of the proceedings””.—[Official Report, 6/12/06; col. 1185.]" I should emphasise that this amendment would not affect the power of an ombudsman under Clause 133(1) to require a respondent to pay costs, as a contribution to scheme resources, in cases of improper or unreasonable behaviour or delay. I beg to move.