Legal Services Bill [Lords]

Amendment No. 153 is the lead amendment in a key group that relates to complaints—in particular, who pays, especially when a complaint fails. Amendment No. 153 would remove the word ““may”” and insert the word ““must””. Amendment No. 154 would provide the opportunity to delegate complaints to a body other than the ombudsman. Amendment No. 56 would enable the ombudsman to award costs against the respondent when the complaint is upheld. Amendment No. 59 is consequential. Amendment No. 58 is the key amendment on the ““polluter pays”” principle, and I shall return to that in a moment. Incidentally, it is very similar to Government amendment No. 93, which is subject to amendments (a) and (b), tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Amendments Nos. 72, 73 and 74 are about the complainant and the respondent's ability to appeal to the High Court. Amendment No. 94 is consequential. Amendment No. 155 relates to the delegation of complaints handling, with special relevance to the Bar Standards Board. Quite a few of the amendments are pretty technical, so in the short time left I shall concentrate on the two key amendments in the group. One deals with the situation in which someone complains about the conduct of a law firm, a barrister, a trademark attorney or legal executive. When that individual or firm is exonerated—totally vindicated—it is unfair if they have to pay significant costs. There is an important principle at stake. We have heard today how the legal profession is under pressure as a result of the Carter reforms and their impact on legal aid and on single petitioner companies. We have heard how many market towns throughout the country will see a lot of consolidation and a lot of firms closing. It would be wrong to ignore David Clementi, who made it clear that those who are exonerated and held to be blameless should not have to pay costs. Let me quote from the Second Reading debate in the other place. Lord Neill of Bladen said:"““It cannot stand up to any outside scrutiny that a man who has a false charge made against him has to pay the costs of the proceedings.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 December 2006; Vol. 687, c. 1185.]" In Committee, I made the point that many younger barristers specialise in the types of law, such as criminal law and family law, where unjustified complaints are likely to be the most prevalent. We do not want young barristers to be put off specialising in those areas of law. I shall not repeat the examples I quoted of an applicant or appellant who loses his case after a long drawn out set of proceedings, feels that he has nothing to left to lose, and therefore takes action by way of making a complaint against the firm of solicitors and perhaps the barrister involved in his case. That happens all the time. In Committee in the other place, Baroness Butler-Sloss said:"““Family cases are highly emotional and very unhappy for those who engage in them. It is almost impossible to be objective about your own family problem. Whether in public law or in private law, the distress caused to litigants is enormous. Almost all litigants go away dissatisfied, most of them with the judge, which is fair enough, and many of them with the lawyer—the solicitor as well as the barrister””.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 February 2007; Vol. 689, c. 1115.]" We felt strongly that where the ““polluter pays”” principle was concerned, it was essential that the Government take the time to listen to what we had to say and to react. I am pleased that the Government have tabled an amendment that is very similar to ours—it is a classic example of co-operation and good will on all sides resulting in a favourable decision. Of course we would like to go further—ideally, we would not include the word ““reduced””—but we are to some extent happy with the substantial progress that has been made. I would therefore like to say a big thank you to the Minister for what has so far been achieved. Previously, I have spoken about complaints handling. In another place and in Committee, there was a spirited debate on the delegation of complaints handling. We had a lengthy discussion about the role of the Bar Standards Board and the extent to which it has put in place a lay chair and built up credibility not only within the profession, but across the legal services field and in the outside world, with consumer groups. Understandably, the board was concerned that all its hard work would be emasculated and marginalised. That is why we tabled amendments in Committee and why we are now proposing amendment No. 155. I shall not go into detail, save to say that it has now been overtaken to some extent by Government amendment No. 109. Let me quote what the consumer group Which? has said. The group made it clear that it was dead against our amendments in Committee, but it now says:"““Over the summer, discussions have continued between the Bar Council and Which?.””" Obviously, it is good news that those discussions took place. It continues:"““We agree that the amendment now tabled by the Government to Schedule 15 meets the concern of the Bar Council but without undermining the OLC.””" In a recent letter to heads of chambers and circuit leaders, the Bar Council said:"““on complaints handling, a compromise satisfactory to us, the BSB and consumer bodies has now been tabled by Ministers…This will mean that the expertise of specialist barristers will not be lost to the complaints process, and we believe that it is a great improvement to the Bill for the benefit of consumers and barristers alike.””" Without going into detail on the technical points of our amendments, I repeat that we had a lengthy debate on the point in Committee. Indeed, there was a certain amount of disappointment among Conservative Members that the Minister was not prepared to go along with what we were asking for, but that was before the summer. I hope that she managed to have some holiday, but I doubt it because she worked very hard on the Bill. I am grateful to her for that hard work; it has delivered a pragmatic, sensible set of Government amendments. I pay tribute to the outside organisations that worked hard on the matter. They never went over the top, but lobbied constructively, enthusiastically and with great effect. The result is that the Government have gone a long away towards where we wanted them to go, and I thank the Minister for that.