Bridget Prentice (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice; Lewisham East, Labour)

My hon. Friend always looks to the centre of the issue. One of our main objectives is to ensure that the consumer gets the proper redress and gets it quickly. I commend my hon. Friend’s assiduous way of going about this—he will sense that there is a “but” coming—but the amendments are not necessarily the right approach. They are ineffective in the sense that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent application for payment under the compensation fund.

Clause 141 is designed to deal with instances where the solicitor, the barrister, or whoever the authorised person might be fails to pay redress awarded against him to a complainant. Under that clause either the complainant or the ombudsman can go to court to have that determination enforced. It is right that the determination should be enforced by court. A lawyer who has done something wrong should pay redress. If the complainant has to make an application to the compensation fund, that might send the wrong message that it is all right for a solicitor to refuse to comply with an ombudsman’s determination because everyone else will have to cough up on his behalf. That cannot be right.

The compensation fund is a discretionary fund. Only the Law Society and the CLC have compensation funds. It is a fund of last resort, operated by the SRA, where no other avenues are available. If a complainant were awarded £5,000 by the ombudsman as redress and the solicitor refused to pay, clause 141 would allow either the complainant themselves, or the OLC if necessary, to have that enforced through the courts.

If a situation arose where the solicitor genuinely could not pay, it might be possible to make the application for payment from the compensation fund. There is no absolute guarantee of success, but nothing in the Bill prevents that from happening. To that extent the amendment is unnecessary. My other concern is that it applies only if the solicitor is unwilling or unable to pay. What happens if a barrister, legal executive, notary or someone else who is an authorised person does not pay under the Bill? I gently suggest to my hon. Friend that singling out one group—solicitors or complaints about solicitors—goes against this part of the Bill. I do not want to see different systems for different complainants.

The idea is that the OLC is the single portal for complaints and I think it should also be the single portal for ensuring that those complaints are dealt with and treated consistently and transparently right across the board. That is why I prefer what we have said in clause 141 to these amendments. My hon. Friend is right to say that complainants do not like having to go to court. It can be a daunting and frightening prospect. That is why we tabled amendments in the other place that allow the OLC to bring those court proceedings on behalf of the complainant. If the lawyer does not comply with that determination and the complainant is intimidated, the ombudsman is there as a form of protection and can go to court on the complainant’s behalf.

I hope that my hon. Friend will know that there are no circumstances in which I would want to see any type of lawyer thinking that they might get away with refusing to pay or to comply with an ombudsman’s determination. If redress is awarded against them, they will have to pay it; either immediately or because they will be taken to court to ensure that they pay.

I hope that I have given a sufficiently strong response on behalf of the consumers whom I know my hon. Friend wants to see getting the best out of the Bill, and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

See this speech in context