Peers have made a raft of judicious changes to the Legal Services Bill. Now the Commons must give it similar consideration, says Lord Hunt


A year ago this week, an all-party joint committee of MPs and Lords began an intense eight-week scrutiny of the government's draft Legal Services Bill. When the House of Commons gets its first taste of the Bill next week, it will be dealing with a very different beast.



As the Bill has progressed through the House of Lords, where it was introduced, ministers themselves have made many amendments, largely in response to the unanimous report from the joint committee, which I had the privilege of chairing, and also to the highly constructive campaigns of the Law Society led by Fiona Woolf and Russell Wallman.



The regulatory objectives in the Bill now include the broader public interest, the role of the Inns of Court has been enshrined, and the executive powers created by the legislation are now vested in the Lord Chancellor (in his capacity as head of the judiciary) and not in the 'Secretary of State'. These changes are positive and to be welcomed.



More controversial and perhaps more interesting, however, are changes to the Bill that have been imposed on ministers by votes in the Lords. These have either sprung from the report of the joint committee or are consistent with it. In most cases, they also bring the Bill more closely in line with the Clementi report. If there has been one uniting theme in my approach to this legislation, and that of the Lords, it has been the paramount importance of the independence of the legal profession and, so far as possible, of the new regulatory bodies too, from political interference. We do not have a written constitution in the UK, or a formalised separation of powers, so it is particularly important that we are on our guard against anything that blurs the lines between the legislative, judicial and executive branches of state.



A major concern has been that ministers failed to appreciate the need to prepare the ground adequately for alternative business structures (ABSs). In this, ministers could call on the vocal support of the professional 'consumer lobby' and, no doubt, of those who stand to gain financially from the looser arrangements in ownership. But the Clementi report, the joint committee, and now the amended Bill all propose a more measured transition. At third reading a fortnight ago, the Lords supported an amendment from Lord (Patrick) Neill qualifying the endorsement of ABSs and requiring the government to take into consideration access to justice, international reputation, and regulation when introducing an ABS regime (see [2007] Gazette, 24 May, 1).



Other amendments passed by the Lords require the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice to senior appointments to the new regulatory bodies; raise the threshold for any interference by the new legal services board into the affairs of the frontline regulators; and delegate complaints handling to the regulators. Perhaps my own favourite - because it so obviously accords with the principles of natural justice - is the addition of the 'polluter pays' principle. Under the terms of the Bill as published, professional people would have had to bear the costs of complaints against them, even when they are not upheld. That was manifestly unfair.



There are still issues on which ministers have failed thus far to dispel our concerns, notably over the costs of the transition to the new system of regulation, which, Olympics-like, seem to be escalating all the time. This is not a party-political Bill and we have sincerely sought to improve it in the public interest, and I hope ministers will allow most, or ideally all, of our amendments to stand. The Lords has played its traditional role, as a thoughtful amending chamber, in a conscientious and fair-minded fashion. Let us hope that MPs do the same.



Conservative Lord Hunt of Wirral chaired the joint committee which scrutinised the draft Legal Services Bill, and is a consultant at national firm Beachcroft