My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 49. These amendments seek to address cross-party concerns expressed both in this House and the other place that certain provisions in Part 6 fail adequately to protect the interests of legal services consumers.
In relation to Amendment No. 47 the Government listened carefully to concerns that the former redress limit would needlessly exclude a significant number of complaints. As a result, the amendment will increase the redress limit from £20,000 to £30,000. As noble Lords will recall, there was debate on the redress limit when the Bill was last in this House. There was also much debate in another place. The amendment seeks to address the arguments made during the Bill’s passage.
At one stage a figure of £100,000 was proposed to the highest level. We have resisted that for three main reasons. First, because £20,000 is higher than any award available under the current legal complaints handling arrangements; secondly, because the average awards made under the existing arrangements by the Law Society and the Bar Council are around £450; and, thirdly, because the Bill provides for the board, the OLC or the consumer panel to recommend an increase in the limit at any time. The Lord Chancellor does not to have to wait for such recommendation, but is able to ask any of those bodies to consider whether to make such a recommendation.
We know that the ombudsman for estate agents may award up to £25,000. I could not claim that I have absolute scientific evidence to suggest that £30,000 is exactly the right figure. It moves on the original figure, and I hope that noble Lords will agree that this is a sensible outcome.
Amendment No. 49 relates to an ombudsman’s obligation to refer a complaint to the relevant approved regulator when they take the view that the complaint may raise disciplinary issues. While ombudsmen are empowered to deal with redress, approved regulators, such as the Bar Council and the Law Society, will continue to deal with any disciplinary issues.
In circumstances where an ombudsman refers a complaint, this amendment will place a further obligation on ombudsmen to inform the complainant that their complaint has been referred to an approved regulator. Following a referral, an ombudsman will be able to continue to determine the complainant’s eligibility for redress.
The intention here is to enable a complainant to follow the disciplinary action taken against their lawyer. This amendment will provide important reassurance to consumers who may want to know that their lawyer will be appropriately disciplined for professional misconduct.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
48: Page 75, line 27, leave out Clause 143
Legal Services Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 17 October 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Legal Services Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
695 c738-9 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:52:19 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_418027
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_418027
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_418027