Legal Services Bill [Lords]

I welcome the Bill. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) accused me of being obsessive, but I prefer the word that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) applied to me: dedicated. Let me explain why I have become involved in this matter. I have enjoyed fighting the vested interests that have been put up against us, but I first got involved not long after I was first elected when an 86-year-old miner's widow came into my surgery on crutches. Her husband had, unfortunately, died the year before, so he had no access to the compensation he was entitled to, and she had been told that 25 per cent. of her compensation was to be taken by Mark Gilbert Morse, a Newcastle-based law firm. It had been paid generously by the Government, but, not satisfied with those legal fees, it had greedily taken—while being able to sleep at night—25 per cent. of an 86-year-old miner's widow's compensation, who, as she described to me, had seen her husband gasp for breath in his last few days before dying. That started me off, and I asked whether that was just a one-off. Sadly, it is not a one-off. If there is one thing that has driven my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw and I, it is the type of constituents we have been dealing with who have been ripped off by law firms that should know better. The narrative has been put over—certainly by the Law Society and Fiona Woolf—that that is a minority activity involving small firms who do not really understand. That is not the case. Some of them are big firms that claim to be reputable. I shall name one of them again, because it still has not paid the money it has taken: Watson Burton, solicitors in Newcastle. It got in league with a claims handler called P and R Associates and took £325,000 from the compensation of miners in north-east England. I do not expect the local newspaper to cover this matter, because when I last raised it the principal partner wrote to the paper and I noticed that a lot of adverts for Watson Burton then started appearing in it. Clearly, the local newspapers do not want to upset one of their major sponsors. Recently, however, I found an interesting list. The company concerned is trying to portray itself as a big national company and to reach out to the financial sector. A press release states:"““Watson Burton has been hit by a massive 52 per cent. nosedive in average profit per equity partner for 2006-07…The 41 partner-firm saw its provisional annual PEP tumble to £220,000, down from £460,000 for the equivalent 12-month period last year.””" Guess why, Mr. Speaker? During the last 12 months, Watson Burton has seen a slow-down in work generated from the Government's coal compensation scheme, which previously employed 60 dedicated lawyers. The company was paid £32 million. It is trying to portray itself as a big, national player from Newcastle, but—not content with the £32 million that it has legitimately received in fees—it is being kept afloat by, and its profits have been boosted over the last few years on the back of, money that it has raided from the compensation of individual miners. One scandal annoys me. In his very good report, Lord Lofthouse highlighted the fact that a staggering 70 per cent. of claimants received less in compensation than the lawyers received in administration fees for their individual cases. The Law Society keeps trying to tell me that such cases constitute the minority, but they do not. These companies are still not paying up, and are not going to. I look forward to the role of the Legal Complaints Service, which, to its credit, is doing a very good job in pursuing some of these rogues. It has recently written to every individual claimant in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who has been inundated with people coming forward with complaints. I look forward to that happening in the north-east—to people coming forward to complain about the likes of Watson Burton. I am pleased that the Government accepted my amendment No. 75, which means that the chairman of the legal services board will be a layperson. That is important, in order to ensure that regulation is seen to be independent from the legal profession. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), I want to thank Which? for its campaigning in respect of this Bill. It has been very instrumental in championing the consumer's cause. I should also like to thank not the many lawyers with whom we have been inundated on this Bill, but, from the other place, a non-lawyer and, admittedly, one lawyer: the Lords Bach and Whitty, both of whom spoke very well. They were lone voices in championing the consumer in a sea of vested interests in the other place, in the form of lawyers and former barristers. The Bill will ensure that the consumer is at the heart of such legislation, which was the Minister's aim at the outset. However, we and the system now need to educate people about lawyers. People think that when they go to a lawyer, they will get straight advice and that every lawyer is the same. It is important to ensure that they know that when they go to a lawyer, they will get specialist treatment and not second-best treatment, because that is not acceptable. Splitting regulation from the advocacy role of the legal profession was long overdue. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford described it as the last closed shop. Let us be honest—we have seen through this Bill the death knell of the last of the closed shops and vested interests, which is very welcome. I finish by congratulating the Minister, who, as has been said, has been very approachable regarding representations from me and other Back Benchers. She has also taken on board the legitimate concerns that have been expressed. Fundamentally, her not being a lawyer has been a great asset. She has been able to see through the crocodile tears of the Bar Council and other vested interests protecting their own positions. She said that she wanted the consumer to be at the heart of this Bill, and I congratulate her on achieving that. I want also to thank her officials, who were helpful to members of the Committee—from all parts of the House—in offering advice. It has not been easy for the Minister at times, but she has done something that is perhaps unique among some Ministers these days: when people were trying to put forward strong arguments on behalf of vested interests, she stuck to the core principle that the consumer is at the heart of this Bill. That is a credit to her. We may yet have another outing, possibly on the coroners' Bill that is coming forward in the next Session. I know that she will be going home, but if she is in the Strangers Bar later, I shall buy her a large Jameson's, if it helps.