Legal Profession

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 10:29 pm on 10 March 2009.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Shahid Malik Shahid Malik Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice 10:29, 10 March 2009

It is an honour to respond to the debate in your presence, Mr. Speaker, and I thank Nadine Dorries for highlighting this important issue.

The Government take the regulation of the legal profession very seriously. These are challenging times, which is why the Government have taken decisive action to deliver real help to families and businesses and to provide a shot in the arm for the economy. It is worth reminding ourselves of some of the Government's action in this regard. We have cut taxes—the 2.5 per cent. VAT cut put £12.4 billion into the economy. We have increased personal tax allowances, child benefit, tax credits and pensions. We have helped home owners facing repossession with a package of measures that could prevent up to 16,000 repossessions. We have provided real help for thousands of businesses, helping firms with cash-flow difficulties, protecting jobs and improving liquidity and business planning for small and medium-sized companies. We have ensured that investment continues and protected and created jobs by bringing forward £3 billion of capital projects on housing repairs and insulation, school extensions, GP refurbishments and transport improvements and by lending up to £13 billion to support private finance initiative projects.

The Government recognise that access to high quality legal services is vital for vulnerable consumers affected by the economic conditions. It is essential that consumers have confidence in their lawyers and the advice that they give. A robust and well-functioning complaints handling process is an important part of maintaining consumer confidence in the legal profession. The public need to know that when things go wrong complaints will be dealt with independently, quickly and fairly.

The hon. Lady raised her concerns about the impact of the economic climate on access to justice in rural areas. That was the subject of passionate debate during the passage of the Legal Services Act 2007, so we were considering that impact long before the current climate evolved. I thank the hon. Lady for rightly bringing it back to the attention of the House. I note in particular her concerns about larger providers being able to cherry-pick the most profitable areas of work, creating what have been commonly called "legal deserts". Although I do not intend to detail all the regulatory powers and obligations available to the Legal Services Board, I stress that the board, as well as the approved regulators, has a statutory duty to promote the improvement of access to justice.

The Government are committed to ensuring that people have access to quality legal help and advice when it is needed, particularly in the current economic climate when the number of people seeking debt advice and related advice is increasing, as the hon. Lady rightly said. I recognise the crucial role that Citizens Advice and other advice organisations play in that regard. Last year, the Legal Services Commission spent £80 million on legal services delivered by the not-for-profit advice sector. A further £13 million has recently been made available to fund 50,000 extra debt cases and 20,000 housing cases in response to the current economic downturn.

In addition, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform has recently made a further £10 million available until March 2010 through Citizens Advice to expand local face-to-face advice capacity in England and Wales. That could assist a further 335,000 people each year. The Legal Services Commission also funds housing possession court duty schemes. The schemes mean that anyone in danger of eviction or of having property repossessed can get free legal advice and representation on the day of the hearing, regardless of their financial circumstances. Since the scheme began in 2005, the number of people who have been helped has more than doubled to around 30,000 a year. About 24,500 people were helped between April and December 2008.

In December, my noble Friend Lord Bach, the Minister responsible for legal aid, announced a study on local advice. It will look at the impact of the recession on the demand for advice, the impact of recent reforms on advice provision and changes in trends in the funding of advice.

The study is due to report at the end of April 2009. It will enable us to develop a more complete picture of the wider issues affecting the advice sector, and of how to address them effectively. That should give us the evidence base to make future decisions with the advice sector and other stakeholders to ensure the sustainability of local advice services.

The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire focused on the Legal Services Act. I can confirm that recent reforms introduced by the Act aim to improve the funding available for, for example, pro-bono advice—advice given for free. The Act enables courts to make orders for the payment of legal costs when the successful party is represented wholly or partly pro bono. Such costs are paid not to the lawyers involved but to the Access to Justice Foundation, a charity that distributes the funds strategically to where resources are needed the most. I know that the hon. Lady will welcome that.

On solicitor complaints, I should make it clear that, although I am obviously sympathetic to the problems that constituents have encountered, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on individual cases—although I hasten to add that the hon. Lady's constituent is fortunate to have an MP willing to advocate so effectively on her behalf. Individual cases are properly matters for the Law Society, the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Legal Complaints Service, as the profession is independent and self-regulating. Under the current system, anyone unhappy with the service provided by their solicitor, or with how their complaint has been dealt with, can approach the LCS. Its complaints guidance suggests that a reasonable time for a solicitor to respond to a client's initial complaint is 28 days. I noted the three-month example that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire gave, which is out of kilter with that guidance.

The LCS aims to resolve quickly all complaints referred to it. About three quarters of the complaints it receives are resolved within six months, as the hon. Lady mentioned, although complicated cases may, of course, take longer to resolve. The LCS does not publish details of the complaints records of solicitors. It has recently consulted on the possibility of the publication of complaints records but, following the consultation, it concluded that more work needed to be done. However, the principle is one to which the LCS is committed.

When the LCS receives complaints about a solicitor's conduct, it will refer the matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The SRA is making more information available to the public: for example, decisions to impose conditions on how solicitors practise are now displayed on the regulator's website, thus empowering individuals.

As for public awareness of complaints mechanisms, we agree that there is a need for awareness-raising activities. Coal health complaints are a good example of how the LCS is seeking to make sure that consumers are aware of their right to redress. The LCS is proactively seeking to make sure that miners know how to complain if they have received poor service from their solicitor. Part of the aim is to raise awareness of how consumers can work more effectively with their solicitors to raise their concerns at an early stage, without the need to make a formal complaint.

The LCS is also taking steps to reach out to traditionally "hard-to-reach" groups, or groups considered to be more vulnerable or disadvantaged. As part of this work, LCS staff attend conferences organised by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. They engage with a range of key stakeholders to try to make sure that consumers are aware of the services that the LCS offers.

I am aware of increasing concern about the tactics that some solicitors employ when pursuing costs. I think that we would all agree that court action should be the last step in pursuing payment. Where a matter is referred to the Legal Complaints Service, it will discourage use of the courts until the complaint is resolved. Solicitors are also subject to the duties set out in the solicitors' code of conduct. Rule 2 of the code includes a requirement to advise the client of the basis and terms of charges, and to discuss with the client how the client will pay. Failure to comply with the code could amount to misconduct, and the Solicitors Regulation Authority would be within its rights to take action over non-compliance.

I commend the actions taken by regulators to improve complaints handling, but the system had needed significant reform for a long time. The Legal Services Act provided that reform by establishing a single entry point complaints body, the Office for Legal Complaints. The OLC will be under a duty to increase the public's understanding of their rights and duties, which may include consumer rights in respect of complaints. The OLC will administer an ombudsman scheme and will be able to award redress of up to £30,000. Conduct matters will be referred to the relevant regulator for appropriate disciplinary action.

The recently established Legal Services Board has already set out its priorities in relation to complaints. The board's business plan, which is currently subject to consultation, sets out key deliverables for the coming financial year. They include appointing the OLC, approving its scheme rules, and setting out the requirements for in-house complaints handling. Some of those deliverables have already been achieved, and the key personnel have been identified. Elizabeth France, the chair, has been in place since autumn 2008. Her board, the chief ombudsman and the chief executive have also been recruited. They will now work to ensure that the OLC is implemented effectively before the ombudsman services are fully operational; that is expected to be in 2010.

Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire for highlighting such an important issue at a crucial time for many people. It is vital that people have access to good quality legal advice, especially in difficult times, and that they have somewhere to go if things go wrong. There is still much to do, but I hope that the examples that I have given show how the system is improving.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.

Minister

Ministers make up the Government and almost all are members of the House of Lords or the House of Commons. There are three main types of Minister. Departmental Ministers are in charge of Government Departments. The Government is divided into different Departments which have responsibilities for different areas. For example the Treasury is in charge of Government spending. Departmental Ministers in the Cabinet are generally called 'Secretary of State' but some have special titles such as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ministers of State and Junior Ministers assist the ministers in charge of the department. They normally have responsibility for a particular area within the department and are sometimes given a title that reflects this - for example Minister of Transport.

Speaker

The Speaker is an MP who has been elected to act as Chairman during debates in the House of Commons. He or she is responsible for ensuring that the rules laid down by the House for the carrying out of its business are observed. It is the Speaker who calls MPs to speak, and maintains order in the House. He or she acts as the House's representative in its relations with outside bodies and the other elements of Parliament such as the Lords and the Monarch. The Speaker is also responsible for protecting the interests of minorities in the House. He or she must ensure that the holders of an opinion, however unpopular, are allowed to put across their view without undue obstruction. It is also the Speaker who reprimands, on behalf of the House, an MP brought to the Bar of the House. In the case of disobedience the Speaker can 'name' an MP which results in their suspension from the House for a period. The Speaker must be impartial in all matters. He or she is elected by MPs in the House of Commons but then ceases to be involved in party politics. All sides in the House rely on the Speaker's disinterest. Even after retirement a former Speaker will not take part in political issues. Taking on the office means losing close contact with old colleagues and keeping apart from all groups and interests, even avoiding using the House of Commons dining rooms or bars. The Speaker continues as a Member of Parliament dealing with constituent's letters and problems. By tradition other candidates from the major parties do not contest the Speaker's seat at a General Election. The Speakership dates back to 1377 when Sir Thomas Hungerford was appointed to the role. The title Speaker comes from the fact that the Speaker was the official spokesman of the House of Commons to the Monarch. In the early years of the office, several Speakers suffered violent deaths when they presented unwelcome news to the King. Further information can be obtained from factsheet M2 on the UK Parliament website.