David Burrowes MP

Legal Services Bill

Mr. David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): As a lawyer and a member of the Joint Committee, I take issue with the point about not rushing the legislation through. Does the Minister accept the concern raised by the Joint Committee about the limited time given for it to consider what at that time were 159 clauses in the draft Bill, which has grown exponentially as the matter has been considered? Perhaps less time could have been given to the amendments if further time had been given to the Committee. Is there not a concern for Parliament that such a time limit has been extended to the Joint Committee on human embryo research? There is profound concern that we should give proper time for pre-legislative scrutiny.
Bridget Prentice: I have always been a great advocate of pre-legislative scrutiny. The timing was challenging, but the Committee clearly rose to that challenge and invited me to respond in an equally short period of time, which I managed to do.
On the Bill itself, regulators must have clear objectives to guide them in exercising their functions and to provide a basis on which consumers can hold them to account. Part 1 sets out those objectives and principles. They will apply to the board, the approved regulators and the office for legal complaints. It is important to be clear that the objectives are not ranked.
Part 2 makes provision for the new oversight regulator, the legal services board. The board will provide independent oversight of legal regulatory bodies. While the day-to-day regulation should, quite rightly, remain with the professions, the board will have a range of powers over them. The Lord Chancellor will appoint the chair and members of the board, and will do so subject to the oversight of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The Lord Chancellor can also remove members of the LSB subject to strict criteria set out in schedule 1.
An amendment in the other place now means that the Lord Chancellor must seek the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice in appointing and removing members of the board. I understand that that might give comfort to the legal professions, but it gives no comfort at all to consumers, and I intend to table amendments to reverse that change.

Later on in the debate, David Burrowes asked: In relation to the board, I have not yet heard whether the Minister will honour the undertaking given the other place. Hon. Members who are lawyers are used to honouring undertakings, and it would be useful if the Minister would do likewise, particularly in relation to the Lord Chancellor’s power to increase the size of the LSB. I understand that an undertaking was given that that relevant power could be dealt with by affirmative, rather than negative, resolution.
Bridget Prentice: I will have to look in more detail at whether we have given such an undertaking. It is not one that jumps to the forefront of my mind at the moment, but I will look at it, and if we have given an undertaking, I will seek to find out whether there is a way in which we can carry it out. But I make it clear that I am not making any guarantee to the hon. Gentleman.
I apologise to the House for taking quite so long over the Bill, but as hon. Members will know, it is a pretty hefty piece of legislation. Parts 8 and 9, as I said, will provide for amendments to existing legislation, and I will introduce a number of minor amendments, including those promised in another place, to ensure that Bill is consistent with existing legislation.
The rules of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal will be subject to oversight by the LSB. The courts will be able to make a costs order in civil cases in favour of a party whose legal representation has been provided on a pro bono basis. Awards will be made at the discretion of the court and will be payable to a designated charitable body. As I have said, the Bill will give effect to the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, which introduces new arrangements for handling complaints about lawyers in Scotland.
The Bill will restore consumer confidence. We will see a modern, flexible, transparent and independent system of regulation. We will have a new oversight regulator that can act, and will act, to protect consumer interests. There will be enhanced competition, with lawyers able to provide services in new and innovative ways. Most importantly, we will see the sweeping away of decades of piecemeal reform and a new robust regulatory system in its place that will put the consumer at heart of the legal system. I commend the Bill to the House.

Further interjections included:
Mr. Burrowes: Is not it a concern that there is little on the face of the Bill to guarantee independence? There is no guarantee, beyond the Under-Secretary’s assurances, that the appointments process will follow Nolan principles. The independence, accountability and openness that Nolan guarantees is not enshrined in the Bill.
Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend makes the point clearly. I agree that he outlines a concern. We should not trifle with the legal profession’s independence, which is as important as the consumer interest. They are both important principles, which need to be respected. Indeed, the Government have accepted that because they included the public as well as the consumer interest in the Bill. That was the right decision, but further work remains to be done.
The other place made changes to the ground on which the board could take action against an approved front-line regulator and to clarify that the board is to act only as a supervisory regulator. The Under-Secretary said that she wanted to refine that. Does she mean a drafting change or a substantive change to what was agreed in the other place? Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. and learned Member for Redcar, could comment on the matter in her winding-up speech. If the regulator is only supervisory and acts as a backstop, that is clearly what Clementi proposed and what we all expect. However, if the Under-Secretary intends to change the Lords proposal, it is important to know the exact reason for that because the protection is important. The Lords tried to raise the threshold for intervention by the board and constrain the powers of direction and public censure so that the regulation was lighter touch, not heavy handed. The Under-Secretary says that she wishes to overturn those changes, but does not she agree that the Clementi model is that of a supervisory regulator and that the provisions will set the tone for whether regulation is light touch or heavy handed? I understand that she has examined various ways in which to suggest appropriate intervention and I welcome her proposal to reconsider ensuring that the oversight nature of the board is included in the Bill. May I invite her to continue in Committee the search for the right words to describe the threshold for intervention? Heavy-handed regulation is in no one’s interests—I know that she agrees.
In a similar spirit, the Government successfully tabled amendments to limit the circumstances in which the board could exercise its power to fine. They responded positively to protecting and promoting the public interest in the regulatory objectives. Limits were placed on the discretion of the office for legal complaints, and that is welcome. However, the other place made a change to provide that charges for the complaints process should not be levied when the complaint was unfounded and the matter was handled properly in-house. I understand that the Under-Secretary proposes to abandon the principle that the innocent do not pay for a complaint against them and that the polluter pays. I find that surprising given that she said that she agreed with the thinking behind the amendment in the other place. Surely there is a compromise to be found there: if she agrees with us, surely we can find words to express that agreement.
Lord King also persuaded their lordships of the need to delegate complaints handling to an improved regulator by direction of the board. That relates, of course, to the highly regarded Bar standards board. It is well known that the Bar is tough on those who transgress: it is part of the culture of the Bar, and it is good at uncovering wrong-doing, so it would be counter-productive to lose those skills under the new system.
Turning to alternative business structures, the principal concern has been the threat of cherry-picking, whereby perhaps a supermarket chain or some other multiple sets up booths to deal with some small aspects—the profitable aspects—of legal services, as a result of which the wider service provided by high-street solicitors and law centres will be lost, widening the legal advice deserts and making life much more difficult for individuals seeking legal advice, particularly the most vulnerable. An amendment was passed in the other place whereby the licensor has to make an investigation of the access to justice implications when determining an application to become an alternative business. If the Minister accepts that that is a vital issue—that is what she said—and if she is happy that her proposals will not damage access to justice, why does she object to the amendment? She seems determined to reverse something that simply provides for what she claims to want, so perhaps she can find some way of squaring that circle, too. One thing is for sure: it is not in the interest of consumers to lose access to justice. A supermarket providing some small legal service is all well and good, but if people want to talk about family law problems or other matters of legal concern, they will have to travel literally tens of miles.
Finally, the Bill will transform the way in which legal services are provided. We consider the Bill to be broadly satisfactory in its current form. We would be alarmed, however, if the Government chose to try to undo all the good work that was done in the other place. There is substantial consensus over this Bill and the changes made reflect the spirit of Clementi and do not conflict with it, so there is no issue of principle between us.
The Joint Committee noted that the public interest and the consumer interest do not always equate, particularly in matters of law, and it is good that the Bill now reflects both interests and that the Government have agreed that it should do so. Although it is vital for consumers to be able to remedy wrongs done to them by lawyers, it is also important that they have access to lawyers who are independent of the Government so that they can pursue the Government for the wrongs that they do. There is therefore no conflict between protecting the consumer and protecting the independence of lawyers. A fair and just system works to the benefit of all. Indeed, it is very much in the public interest. We believe that it is vital to consumers to protect access to justice. Legal services are sometimes commercial in nature, but they often amount to an important part of the welfare state.
We look forward to examining the Bill further in Committee. We see some room for compromise and further reflection, and we will want to raise a range of issues. One issue is whether there should be some regulation for will writers. As the Minister knows, that is a classic area for burying one’s mistakes because problems often come to light after the death of the person who made the will. Some standards should be set, but I am not suggesting that only solicitors should be able to write wills. In some ways, this area falls into the same category as claims handlers, so perhaps the Minister will consider whether similar provisions should apply.
At this stage, and taking account of the current state of the Bill, we see no reason to divide the House, but I want to make it clear to the Government that if they abandon a co-operative approach and attempt simply to reverse the Lords’ improvements, our attitude will change.
Mr. Burrowes: I support the Bill and the intention to establish a one-stop shop for legal complaints. That would provide integrity and ensure that complaints that had not been followed through correctly in the past—we have heard many stories about those—will be better dealt with. That is why I support many of the principles underlying the Bill. The independence of the legal profession is the cornerstone of the rule of law. That is worth repeating, even though the Minister was not keen to extol it.
When one considers the structures proposed in the Bill, one needs to see where that independence is guaranteed. First, the chair of the legal services board will be a lay person. If the defendant at Stevenage were aware of that, he would no doubt be pleased that the chairman was not a lawyer. It is a clear indication that lawyers will not dominate the regulatory structure.
John Mann: I am rather confused about the direction in which the hon. Gentleman is going by suggesting that the Bill is against the independence of solicitors acting in court. Could he assist me by giving an example of a legal appointment made by the Lord Chancellor that he regards as not independent?
Mr. Burrowes: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall come to the process and give some examples of the Government not handling lawyers in a different way from accountants and other professionals when they should do so.
Is the legal services board independent? I hopethe hon. Gentleman and others would agree that the Government are not universally trusted in respect of the appointment process. A survey on whether the Government are trusted with appointments would reveal some reservations. It is not universally accepted that they are the appropriate authority. The Government should be primarily involved in legal appointments, but such appointments should be made with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice. Why should the Lord Chief Justice not be involved, to ensure a degree of independence? The criticism that is made is that he is just another lawyer.
Mr. Kevan Jones: That is a fair point, but will the hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that the legal services ombudsman, who is a lay person, is appointed by the Lord Chancellor? Is he saying that the profession has no confidence in that appointment?

Mr. Burrowes: Not at all. Far be it from me to speak on behalf of the legal profession—I am as much a consumer and as much a lawyer as others. However, an appointment as crucial as this, which involves a supervisory role—a real break from the past—must be dealt with uniquely, because it raises clear questions about independence that need to be dealt with satisfactorily.
John Mann: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Burrowes: I want to make some more progress.
In the other place, arguments were made about areas that I do not think can be advanced as equivalents. The question was asked, “Why should we do this? Is it not the same as the head of Ofcom being appointed by Rupert Murdoch or the chairman of the Competition Commission being the chairman of Tesco?” Those arguments are not well made. The independence of the legal profession is significant: it is a cornerstone of the rule of law and needs to be handled cautiously.
The Government seek to give assurance by saying that the appointment process will be conducted according to the Nolan principles and that it will be conducted diligently and transparently. The concern, though, is whether that is enough and whether the Government should have gone further in anotherplace. There are legitimate questions and concerns.Is it significant that the Government resisted the amendment saying that the appointment should be made in accordance with the rules applicable at the relevant time? Why did they resist that amendment so vigorously? Surely a justified concern is properly dealt with by the Lord Chief Justice having the concurrent responsibility for an appointment.
The appointment process also raises other questions. The Government have not yet made clear how it should properly be carried out and where formal responsibility for appointment lies. It will be essential to ensure that the appointment panel is demonstrably independent of Government. Under the ordinary procedures for public appointments, the panel would no doubt have been chaired by a senior official in the Department for Constitutional Affairs, but that would not be satisfactory in a context in which independence from Government is paramount for consumers up and down this land.
The concern about independence goes further than the appointment process and relates, among other things, to the powers exercised by the legal services board. I urge the Minister to think again as the Bill proceeds to Committee and to take seriously the amendment and the supporting argument that those powers should be exercised only when there is a significant rather than a marginal adverse impact on the regulatory objectives. That amendment referred to the important point that, as all hon. Members have said, the legal services board should have a light-touch role—a supervisory role that could be properly enshrined in the amendment.
The regulatory structure proposed in the Bill cannot work unless the presumption is that the approved regulators carry out their responsibilities diligently and competently in the public interest. They are entitled to expect a degree of discretion to act on their analysis of what is needed. The front-line regulators need to be distinct from the supervisory role of the legal services board. The board should not be able to exercise its powers simply because it would have reached a different decision on the matter concerned and has thus concluded that the regulatory objectives would be better served by a different decision. It is important that the board does not just second-guess the front-line regulators. It must see its role as an important supervisory one that should involve intervention only when it judges that there has been a significant adverse impact.
Further to the issue of independence, I look forward to the Minister’s opinion on whether the undertaking given to the other place about the power of the Lord Chancellor to increase the size of the board, which could affect the decisions that are made, could give an impression of manipulation. Will there be an undertaking that the powers to increase the size of the board will be achieved by affirmative resolution rather than negative resolution?
Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman raised that issue with the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice), when she opened the debate. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee considered that a negative resolution was sufficient, and we are content to accept its advice.
Mr. Burrowes: I am not sure of the order of events relating to the Committee’s advice, but certainly in the other place a clear undertaking was given that the issue would be decided by affirmative resolution if necessary, and that matter will need to be progressed.
I agree with the concern expressed by the Government in their response to the Joint Committee. They said:
“The Legal Services Board should exercise its powers only where approved regulators are clearly failing”.
Unfortunately, that undertaking is not to be carried through, according to the Government’s latest indication. The impact provision needs a qualifying adjective: “clearly failing” were the Government’s words and that is what needs to go into the Bill. I urge the Government to review that aspect of it.
Independence covers other areas, including costs in relation to the legal services board. In making these comments, I am not just squeaking on behalf of members of the profession, who will have to pay more. I want to look beyond that to the important issue of independence. Is it reasonable to have no contribution from the Government in terms of the supervisory role of the legal services board? Its functions, which I hope we would all agree with, relate to public assurance. When hon. Members have expressed concerns about some activities of the legal profession, is it right that the legal profession should be depended on to be able to fund the supervisory role of the legal services board? Surely it is important to have the independence that is marked by not depending on the purse strings of the legal profession. Inevitably, the high initial costs—we heard the latest figures today and they may well rise—will fall on practitioners, but not only on them. They will not simply take a cut in their salaries. The costs will also fall inevitably on consumers. Consumers have an interest in whether the initial costs should be borne, at least in part, by the Government.
The Government say in response that those being regulated should bear the cost of regulation. Why, then, do they have a different approach to claims management and to the accountancy profession? It is important that while the legal profession recognises the full cost of the first tier of regulation, the supervisory tier has a distinct purpose. The supervisory tier of the legal services board guarantees for consumers as much as anyone else that there are ethically sound and competent lawyers who are independent of the state.
Let me use not my own words, but those of Sir David Clementi, whose work has been widely approved:
“The issue arises as to how the LSB should be paid for. At present a substantial part of the oversight function is paid for by the State: judicial oversight falls to the taxpayer, as does thecost of the oversight function carried out by Government departments. The arguments in favour of the Government contributing to the cost of oversight functions, beyond the fact that it does already, are...that the LSB, in pursuit of its objectives...such as ‘access to justice’, has a wider role in the public interest than the oversight of practitioners in the legal sector; and”—
this is a crucial argument by Sir David—
“that an element of payment by other than the bodies being regulated confirms that the regulator is independent of the regulatee.”
Sir David went on to raise the interesting precedent in the proposed funding of the Financial Reporting Council. Its funding is to be split, with two thirds falling to the private sector and one third to the Government. How the split should be made between the private sector and the Government for the LSB would need to be covered in statute and no doubt subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Sir David points to that example of the Government meeting one third of the cost of the Financial Reporting Council. The Government also meet the full cost of the supervisory tier of health care regulation—the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence. However, they have not provided an adequate explanation of why they consider it appropriate to meet part of the cost of the supervisory tier of regulation in the accountancy field, but not in respect of legal services. In the case of the CHRE, the Government say that it is appropriate for them to pay because it is important to demonstratethat the organisation is independent of the medical profession. Why can that argument apply to the CHRE but not to the legal profession? The legal servicesboard should be demonstrably independent of the Government and the legal profession. Why is the argument good for the medical profession but not for the legal profession? Are the Government proposing a new constitutional settlement in which they value the independence of the medical profession but not that of the legal profession?
It is important to ensure that the legal profession is not expected to finance the element of regulation that focuses primarily on the public interest. The legal services board will not only deal with the regulation of legal services but consider the interests of legal service providers and others entering the field. That has significant public policy implications. Is it right to expect the legal profession to finance public policy considerations, which the Government currently fund?
The Government propose to transfer costs, which they currently fund, to the legal profession for the legal services ombudsman. They propose that the legal profession should pay the costs of the office for legal complaints, part of those of the Office of the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner, which the Bill abolishes, and those of the legal services consultative panel. The Government could continue with their current spending commitments, thus ensuring the preservation of the important principle of independence.
A continuing contribution from the Government may act as an important brake on the legal services board expanding its activities unjustifiably. One would hope that there was no greater brake or check on that than the public purse. The board should not be able to increase its activities and simply pass on the costs to the legal profession unchecked. Many want the board to operate as a light-touch supervisory body, and costs need to be taken on board in that context and in that of the debate on independence.
I cannot finish without mentioning access to justice, in which I have been involved as a solicitor for 12 years. The Government wish to reverse an amendment, and that means removing the guarantee that access to justice will be taken into account in decisions on licensing prospective alternative business structures. Concern was expressed in the Joint Committee and evidence was taken from the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, which stated:
“Such changes are seen as a potentially catastrophic threat to the networks of high street solicitors, with the damage to access to justice for ordinary people that that would cause.”
That may be overstating the case, and it is important that access to justice works both ways.
Mr. Kevan Jones: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about access to justice. However, does he agree that any method that keeps inefficient and poor solicitors in business does nothing to provide access to quality justice, which many of his constituents and mine should expect?
Mr. Burrowes: I am grateful for that intervention. I am the first to admit that I have seen and been frustrated and appalled by the bad practices that occur. However, there are many good local high street practitioners who provide an invaluable service. The baby should not be thrown out with the bath water that has been stained by solicitors who cause problems. In some circumstances, access to justice can be promoted by lower costs and providing services away fromhigh street premises. One should not simply wed the argument about access to justice to the number of offices on a high street.
Nevertheless, the Carter reforms pose a threat. Aswe speak, good quality solicitors’ firms—not the bad ones—are going out of business. I can give the Under-Secretary a list of such colleagues and firms.
Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that approximately 95 per cent. of all solicitors signed the unified contract again, thus showing their willingness and, indeed, anxiety to continue working on legal aid. I do not believe that he can be right.
Mr. Burrowes: The Under-Secretary knows about the great concern about signing that contract. The fact that 95 per cent. of solicitors signed it does not constitute a ringing endorsement of the Government’s approach to legal aid. One has to look beyond that at what is happening on the ground and the number of solicitors’ firms that are worried about the future, even before the Carter reforms have been effected.
Although we should not be wedded to the principle that access to justice depends on having high street firms everywhere, we should at least take account of it. The amendment proposed that due weight should be given to that and that, when appropriate, investigations should be conducted.
I welcome the Bill for many reasons but especially because it simplifies matters. The Joint Committee helpfully provided a diagram in colour of the current regulatory maze. It could well be a design that my children did during half term. Over the page, the maze is transformed by the proposed reforms. That is welcome to the profession and consumers. Above all, the Government must ensure that they do not challenge and undermine the profession’s independence.

Mr. Burrowes: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not make it to the Joint Committee, as I would have enjoyed being part of the same Committee and exchanging views with him. He talks a good game about being robust, but can he be more specific in explaining why the amendments from the other place are not robust? Does his direction of travel mean a greater role for the Government?
John Mann: I intend to go through the amendments, not least because there is a whisper that the Opposition are not particularly perturbed about how many days are allocated to the Public Bill Committee. There seems to be a consensus on getting the Bill through quickly and smoothly. I offer to the usual channels my services on the Public Bill Committee. I understand that, even if I am not selected as a member of that Committee, I have the right to attend in order to ensure that my constituents’ perspective is heard. My services are available in the next few weeks, should they be required.
My other observation is of an even more historic nature: the final decline of “Liberal” within the Liberal Democrats. I always disagreed with the Liberals’ overemphasis on the individual as opposed to society. That was always my perspective on the history of the trade union movement’s shift from the Liberals to the Labour party. Finally, the last vestiges of “Liberal” in the merged party have been put to rest. Given the extraordinary position of the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on the question of the rights of the individual consumer,the only appropriate name change I can suggest for the party is to “Whigs”.
“Independent” cuts in different directions. As far as I am aware, there is currently an independent legal services ombudsman. I have here a report that appears to be written by the legal services ombudsman, “The special report by the legal services ombudsman for England and Wales on the miners’ cases”. I do not know whether the current post holder is a barrister or a solicitor, but that does not seem to me to be a relevant requirement for the supervisory role being fulfilled, despite the implicit suggestion that a legal professional is needed.
I shall have to study the Bill in greater detail, but a provision that the post should always be filled by a lay person who is not a legal professional might be a suitable way of ensuring the independence of the chair of the legal services board. Clearly, it is invidious for a legal professional to oversee his own profession without independent input. Many skills can be brought to bear, but having the view of a person from outside, who neither has, has had or intends in future to have a pecuniary interest in the profession being overseen, seems to be the essence of independence.
We can argue about the detail, and it is legitimate for hon. Members to put forward proposals, test the Government and go further in that regard. My requirement, however, is for an independence that is separate from the vested interests of the legal profession. I do not use the term “vested interests” in a derogatory way; I use it factually. It is perhaps no surprise that some of the improvements in the Law Society’s robustness in dealing with problems have been due to bringing in expertise from outside to take a fresh view. In saying that, I cast no aspersions on anyone in the legal profession, now or previously. It would be similarly absurd were we to appoint a Member of the House—or an ex-Member—to oversee our behaviour. Were that suggested, it would, I hope, be ridiculed in the House, and I would vote against it were it ever proposed. It would also rightly be ridiculed outside the House.
Mr. Burrowes: Does not the Bill provide that the first chairman of the legal services board will be a lay person? Does not that provide the robustness that the hon. Gentleman wants? The concern is that there should be a joint appointment process involving the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice.
John Mann: If it is good to have an independent person at the beginning, it is also good in the continuum. Let me answer the question that I posed to the hon. Gentleman, which he forgot to answer, about current appointments by the Lord Chancellor. I have not heard criticism of those appointments. In relation to the other side of Nolan, the robustness is therefore all to be seen. I am totally against the vested interests of the legal profession influencing such decisions. That would be an absurdity, and would let down the legal profession overall.
I have some other concerns about the Bill. On the maintenance and development of standards for the legal profession, does the Bill assist—and what does “assist” mean—or does it lead the way? The report took a lead—it could have gone further, and other reports might be needed, not just relating to miners, on the way in which the profession has handled itself. I would like to see a leadership role in maintaining and developing standards, not merely an assisting role.
The question of the legal services board’s powers is fundamental—what it can and cannot do should perhaps be itemised. The auditing of regulatory services is also fundamental. Progress must be made on what lies underneath the problems.

Mr. Burrowes: To go back to the Minister’s categorisation of those who want a sunrise clause as people employing a delaying tactic, would she say that Sir David Clementi and the Joint Committee on the Draft Legal Services Bill were guilty of using delaying tactics? They all urged a cautionary approach to the ABS systems.
Vera Baird: Caution is the Government’s watchword, and we will proceed with monitoring as we go along, but silly research that is intended to support a wrecking amendment will not be tolerated; the Bill will make progress at the appropriate rate.
Let me turn to the issue of trade unions. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has made it clear that we in no way intend the Bill to regulate lay trade union representation in the workplace, whether full time or part time. Nor do we intend it to put additional burdens on unions that provide legal advice to their members. However, contrary to what was suggested, that does not mean that union members will have no protection, for a number of reasons. First, any reserved legal activities that a union undertakes will have to be carried out by lawyers and will be subject to regulation. We are talking about not regulating the union as an entity, rather than not regulating the lawyers who work within it. In addition, the exemption applies only where the union is providing legal services deriving from its membership. If the union wanted to provide legal services to the public at large, it would have to be regulated as an entity and would have to get an ABS licence.
The Royal Automobile Club, the Automobile Association or any other members’ organisation would be in the same position; as long as it provided services only for its own members, and as long as its membership was not so wide that it amounted to a section of the public under clause 15(6), it, too, would not have to be regulated. It is common for members of unions to be referred to outside firms with which the union has arrangements, but where trade unionists have a complaint about the way in which they have been represented, they can of course go to the certification officer, if there is a breach of the rulebook; that remedy is not available to somebody who is being represented by a citizens advice bureau.
The issue of not delegating complaints-handling to the Bar Standards Board is central to our policy of creating a single, independent complaints body. The office for legal complaints should deal with all complaints of up to £20,000, although that limit can be increased. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw talked about the need for it to be higher. The Law Society’s current ceiling is £15,000, so the provision is better than that, but we will certainly consider the points that he made. The OLC will be free to seek advice or assistance from anybody, including approved regulators; that is important, and it means that the much lauded expertise of the Bar Standards Board will not be lost. It is imperative that the OLC be independent. It is a new redress system; it is not the Bar Standards Board. There must not be the impression that the profession is judging itself, and there will be no delegation of complaints-handling down to the Bar Standards Board. This important legislation will put in place a regulatory framework that puts the consumer at its heart.