Legal Services Bill [Lords]

It was splendid to have a speech with its own commercial break. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice), expressed quite proper concern that my having been reshuffled into my present responsibilities immediately before the summer recess, I might have spent the entire summer reading the Legal Services Bill and catching up on the Committee stage. I can reassure her that there were brief moments when nothing could have been further from my mind than the Legal Services Bill. Having said that, I took the time to read the preceding debates and I pay tribute to all who have been involved in the discussions on this complex Bill. I have the easiest job in the world; coming in at the last stages and taking some credit for a Bill to which I have made very little contribution. The Minister who has had sole charge of the Bill—exceptional, for a Bill of this complexity and length—has done extremely well and I would add other Committee members to that; my hon. Friends the Members for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), as well as the hon. Members for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) and for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham). Those who were not referred to earlier but whose contribution I certainly appreciate include the hon. Members for North Durham (Mr. Jones), for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and for Bassetlaw (John Mann). I feel that Bassetlaw is a worthy successor to ““LA Law”” and have been trying to get some currency for the adjective ““bassetlegal ““ as a way of describing the complex legal arrangements that appear to prevail in his constituency. He made an important contribution to the Bill as did all hon. Members and those in another place, including the noble Lord Kingsland, my noble Friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and their colleagues, who will have the opportunity to look at some of the changes that we have made to the Bill. The Bill is hugely improved. The iterative process of negotiation, listening to contributions from Members on both sides and the amendments that have been tabled have improved the Bill considerably. There are still some issues, however. The hon. Member for Huntingdon asked whether the legal services board can be perceived as a creature of Government. It is very important that we maintain the independence of the board, not just from the legal profession but from the Government so that it is not perceived in that way. That is why we must return to the appointments process for the chairman of the board. I am not convinced that there should be no trade union exemption, but I am certainly convinced that we do not have the right wording in the Bill at the moment to exempt those core activities of both trade unions and—I stress this again, despite what the Minister says—other mutual organisations to differentiate those core activities from other activities that should properly fall within the Bill. I am enormously encouraged by the fact that the Minister accepted my amendments earlier. I do not think that that was down to any charm or persuasiveness on my part. It was down to the perspicacity and wisdom of the Minister in recognising that what I was saying was right; that it cannot possibly be right for somebody to be found to be entirely innocent of any blame and—that is the important conjunction, in answer to the hon. Member for Stafford—with a robust complaints procedure in place, still have to pay a penalty. That will not now apply and I am delighted by that. The last concern is access to justice and, again, I welcome the amendments made to the Bill this evening. I still worry whether the proposed legislation will have an adverse effect on communities such as those that I represent, where it is increasingly difficult to access good legal services and where any disturbance in the delicate balance of cross-subsidy that applies at present might lead to greater difficulty—a point that particularly applies to legally aided services in rural areas. That worry will not be assuaged until the Bill has been enacted and is in operation. However, at least it now addresses this issue in a way that it did not an hour ago. It is testament to the good work that has been done, including by the Minister's Bill team, that a disparate group of what I think we are supposed to call stakeholders—the Law Society, the Bar Council and consumer groups—feel that they have had an opportunity to improve the Bill and that it largely meets their different requirements. If we have satisfied all those expert groups, and have also respected the principles of Sir David Clementi's original review, it seems to me that we have done a pretty good job. My final point might well be accepted by the Minister and other Labour Members. It is my firm and unshakable view that law is too important to be left to the lawyers. It is critical to the well-being of everybody in this country. It is an essential part of the welfare state. We must have a good legal profession; and I think that, largely, we do have a good legal profession, despite what has on occasion been said. Unsung and without great reward, many lawyers across the country are doing a very good job. We must maintain those high standards and ensure that everybody has equality before the law—equality of representation and quality in representation. If the Bill achieves all those objectives, it will be a very good Bill.