Legal Services Bill [Lords]

I agree. The amendments all help to achieve a better list of principles in clause 1. The principles are of"““(a) protecting and promoting the public interest; (b) supporting the constitutional principle of the rule of law; (c) improving access to justice; (d) protecting and promoting the interests of consumers; (e) promoting competition in the provision of services…(f) encouraging an independent, strong, diverse and effective legal profession””—" ““independent”” was added in the Lords, as was the first principle, ““protecting and promoting the public interest””. The list continues with"““(g) increasing public understanding of the citizen’s legal rights and duties; (h) promoting and maintaining adherence to the professional principles.””" The hon. Member for Stafford said also that five professional principles are then set out. The first three are independence and integrity for all in the professions; proper standards; and the support of clients’ best interests. The last two provide that"““people who exercise before any court a right of audience, or conduct litigation…should comply with their duty to the court to act with independence in the interests of justice, and (e) that the affairs of clients should be kept confidential.””" Lord Thomas of Gresford made the point clearly on Second Reading that the important thing about people practising in the legal profession is that they owe a duty not just to their clients, but to the courts and to the justice system. They therefore, for example, have an obligation to ensure that there is no conflict of interest, and an obligation not to state things that they know to be untrue. [Interruption.] That is the professional obligation. One may be given instructions that sound incredible, but one has to put the case, because that is the way in which the adversarial system works. One is certainly not allowed to put forward something that one knows to be untrue, or something that reveals a conflict of interest without it being public. Those matters are important, and making the regulatory standards clear and placing them in statute will represent progress. We now think that the objectives are much better defined, and we do not think that they should be amended by ministerial decision alone. It is not the biggest debate in the world as to whether the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor should be able to change the membership of the legal services board, and add to or take away from its numbers, but it is the right change to make, because one of the Bill’s troubles is that it increases the powers of the Government and of Ministers. A tally was made of the Secretary of State’s powers: it started off at 100 and ended up at 288. However eminent the Minister and however grand their title—such as Lord Chancellor, which goes with the title of Minister of Justice under the new system—we should ensure that decisions are made not only by the Government. The reason why we support appointments and dismissals being under the joint lock of the Minister and the Lord Chief Justice is that the head of a Department—however full of integrity—is a politician and is perceived to be a politician. If an authority is to command respect, it must be seen not to be full of political appointees. The Lord Chief Justice, who has never been perceived to be political or party political, will provide that guarantee.