Simon Hughes (Party President, Cross-Portfolio and Non-Portfolio Responsibilities; North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

This clause is the first of a set of linked clauses to which my comments are relevant, so I shall make my comments substantively on this clause, but they apply to clauses 99 to 102 and to schedule 14. That way, I need not trouble the Committee to debate each of those measures.

I want to make a straightforward, general point on behalf of the people whose professional careers might be affected as a result of an investigation and disciplinary sanction, such as the employees referred to in clause 98, the people who might be disqualified under clauses 99 and 100, and the people who might be affected by a suspension or revocation of their licence under clause 101 or by an intervention under clause 102 or schedule 14.

My experience of dealing with the regime for people in the legal profession, particularly solicitors, is that the most common type of complaint is from members of the public who feel that a grievance has not been dealt with adequately by the regulatory or complaints authorities. We shall discuss the complaints mechanisms in part 6. However, complaints from members of the profession have, periodically, been justified, such as that the process is very slow, which means that they have had a cloud hanging over them for a long time, and that the procedures are opaque, which has denied them natural justice in putting their side of the argument.

Whatever my view or the views of other hon. Members about alternative business structures, if we are to have some or all the systems, perhaps starting with a pilot or delayed scheme before they are all introduced, we need to ensure not only that the people who work within them can be dealt with toughly and without any nonsense if they behave improperly, but that the systems are reasonable.

The structures set out in the clauses are fine. It is perfectly proper to have a referral process about an individual employee and to have disqualification, and it is important to publish lists of people who have been disqualified, so that people do not find that they are dealing with someone who is no longer eligible. It is also perfectly proper for licences to be suspended or revoked and for there to be interventions. None the less, there must be fairness on both sides. Will the Minister assure us that the Government intend that the rules, as they are set up by the Legal Services Board and as they apply down the pyramid, will ensure that the new systems are better, fairer, more transparent and more user-friendly both for the people who work in the relevant businesses and for the consumers who buy the services?

It has not been a happy story. I can cite chapter and verse when it comes to perfectly reasonable complaints from aggrieved practitioners who feel that the system has not been fair to them. The greatest complaint on both sides is delay. Customers say, “This is a ridiculously long investigation,” and solicitors say, “It has taken  ridiculously long for you to tell me whether I did anything wrong.” It will be helpful if the Minister can assure me that she understands the need for a system that is just on both sides and better than the previous one.

Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative)

Order. Before I invite the Minister to reply, may I suggest that the hon. Member for Stafford take the place of the Parliamentary Private Secretary so that if the Minister needs information from her civil servants, they can legitimately pass it to her via the Parliamentary Private Secretary, rather than directly?

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

Thank you, Sir Nicholas, for that clear explanation of the quaint but important rules of Committee. It means promotion for my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, and rightly so—[Hon. Members: “Hear hear.”]— a week early, in this case.

I need not delay the Committee. The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey is right. Fairness on both sides is crucial. The board and the approved regulators must act fairly and proportionately, and that applies to employees within the system as well as to consumers. Those working within the system are consumers, too, but in a slightly different sense. I can give him the assurance that the regulatory objectives and the duties under clauses 3 and 28 should ensure that the board and the authorities behave fairly towards everybody with whom they interact.