With the joint parliamentary committee beginning work on the draft Legal Services Bill, John Ludlow reports on fears that there is not enough time to discuss the proposals

The draft Legal Services Bill is finally with us. Or at least with a joint committee of MPs and peers, specially set up to examine its 160 clauses and 15 schedules.


This is the process known as pre-legislative scrutiny and is one of the more important parliamentary developments in recent years. White Paper consultations still have their place, but there is no substitute for a debate on the proposed text of a Bill.


Much depends, of course, on whether ministers accept the recommendations the committee eventually makes. But while they are not obliged to do so - the findings of select committees, after all, are regularly ignored - they will be careful not to appear dismissive. After all, this is a committee that has been specifically set up with the purpose of scrutinising the draft Bill.


We have no way of knowing at this stage what those recommendations will be. But most commentators will be encouraged by a glance at the committee's members. For example, the chairman is ex-Beachcrofts partner Lord Hunt of Wirral, who will bring first-hand knowledge of the legal landscape to the committee's deliberations. It is also good to see the inclusion of solicitor MP David Kidney, who has been the well-regarded chairman of the parliamentary Labour Party's legal and constitutional affairs group for some time.


It is clear that this will be a valuable, extra opportunity for the Law Society and others to voice their concerns. The committee will be taking written and oral evidence from a wide range of interested bodies and individuals, including Sir David Clementi, the Lord Chief Justice, Which?, the Co-op and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. But it is hoped that members will listen especially carefully to the professional body most affected by these important changes.


The timetable is short - some have argued too short. The committee is required to produce its report by 25 July, the day on which Parliament rises for the summer. Because of this, many of the oral sessions have been set up before the closing date for written submissions. The Law Society, for example, is scheduled to give its oral submission on 9 June, with the Regulation Board and the Consumer Complaints Board appearing before the committee on 19 June.



The Law Society will be fully articulating its concerns at these sessions, including the threat to the independence of the profession and the dangers of over-regulation.


But while the publication of the draft Bill puts the issue of the regulation of legal services into the parliamentary domain, it is fair to say that it is not yet on most MPs' radar screens. That will not come until we have the Bill proper, probably in December.


At the moment, MPs are naturally more concerned with those Bills currently on the floor of the House. For example, they are just about to debate the Compensation Bill, which caused so much controversy in the Lords. The so-called 'negligence clause' - an attempt by the government to deal with the perceived problem of risk aversion - found little favour with peers, who considered it at best unnecessary and at worst dangerous. The Law Society agreed, and hopes that this offending clause will be taken out by the Commons standing committee, scheduled to meet later this month.


The issue of the inheritance tax treatment of trusts is also set to be debated in the Commons this week and, again, the government is under concerted pressure to back down. The Treasury is not noted for its u-turns, but it is hoped that it will see sense on this occasion.



As expected, government concessions on the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill helped to secure its passage through the Commons, with all-party support for amendments to restrict the Bill's remit. However, there is still disquiet, particular about the operation of the veto and the fast-tracking of Law Commission proposals, and it is uncertain whether the government has done enough to pacify the Lords.


The arrival of the summer has also seen the annual change to the dramatis personae of government. While most eyes were on the replacement of beleaguered Home Secretary Charles Clarke by John Reid, the more observant noticed the arrival of a fourth junior minister at the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA), Vera Baird QC. How long ago was it that the department had only two junior ministers? Perhaps the DCA is preparing for expansion or the widening of its remit in the near future.


Almost of more interest was the speculation, at the time of the reshuffle, that Lord Falconer would take over the role of leader of the House of Lords from Baroness Amos. The suggestion was that Geoff Hoon, a former minister in the department, would take over as secretary of state.


This would have been the first time that the department had an MP as its head. It was not to be. But had it happened, it would surely have marked a significant change of culture at Selborne House.


John Ludlow is head of the parliamentary unit at the Law Society