Legal Services Bill [HL]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 13 which stands in my name and touches on access to justice. Noble Lords will recall that lying behind the proposal is the fear that someof the new business structures will be powerful economic players. I am thinking in particular of larger, better-resourced firms of solicitors, possibly amalgamated with other professions, which will in effect wipe out the small firms of solicitors, operating perhaps in difficult circumstances, in the high street or in rural areas. We have had evidence from noble Lords about the anxieties on this topic of solicitors in various partsof the country. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, spoke about Wales; the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, spoke about Yorkshire and Cumbria; the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, spoke about the anxieties in the West Country; and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that he was particularly concerned about rural areas. There is no doubt about this. Perhaps the most compelling evidence came from the former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. In his capacity as Lord Chief Justice, he travelled the land and became well aware of anxieties among solicitors throughout the country. The fact that there is such anxiety has not been challenged and we have not had proper evidence of the likely economic outcome. There has been a new development of which your Lordships should be aware. On 9 May, the day after we previously spoke about the matter, the Ministry of Justice came into life—it sprung fully formed from the helmet—and immediately published a manifesto entitled Justice—a new approach. That is relevant because, throughout, it advocates the fact that in setting up the new department the Government are adopting as one of their principles the importanceof access to justice. I will give brief citations from pages 11, 15, 16 and 20. On page 11, the department states as one of its objectives: "““We will provide access to justice for all: by making help and advice and financial support available at the point of need and at the earliest stage, especially for the most vulnerable””." On page 15, it states: "““We will promote justice by: ensuring that our justice system is accessible and effective, respected and understood””." On page 16, under ““Provision for Justice””, is the important passage: "““An effective justice system is not just about the courts and the judges; it concerns the extent to which the public has access to that system. Access depends on understanding one’s rights and knowing how to go about enforcing them … Access to justice means making sure that people, and particularly the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in society, are able to get the help, advice and support that they need””." All this cries out for having local advice centres and local solicitors who can do exactly that. Finally, on page 20, the department says: "““We will work together with communities to give them a greater stake in how justice is delivered in their area, improving the visibility, accessibility and accountability of justice””." None of that can be compatible with a separate government policy which, if implemented, is likely to have the consequence of wiping out a lot of local solicitors who could give advice. This would appear to be a case in which the Lord Chancellor, wearing his hat as Secretary of State for Justice, wishes to have a unified approach—not one department doing one thing and another bit of the system doing something else. On page 27, the department states: "““Working closely with the other key departments, the Ministry of Justice provides the opportunity to look at the system as a whole; not as a set of constituent parts, but as a consistent, coherent whole””." The other piece of fresh information that your Lordships should have relates to Germany. We have touched on this subject on two or three earlier occasions. The Joint Committee—I apologise to the House because I should have declared that I wasa member of the Joint Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, I am a member of the legal profession, I was on the Bar Council and I was once chairman of the Bar. The Joint Committee had evidence from the German equivalent of the Bar Council and the Law Society rolled into one. Its evidence brought to our notice that, on the continent, what we were doing would be regarded as unacceptable. It would not be possible for a German lawyer—a Rechtsanwalt—to be a member of one of these new bodies, particularly if it had outside funding. I raised that point on the previous occasion when we discussed this matter, and the Minister replied: "““Noble Lords talked about the German BRAK. On a recent overseas visit, I heard that the German Parliament is looking to legislate in this direction. The relationship between the reaction of the German BRAK and what is happening in Germany may be relevant to our deliberations, but it looks as if Germany may be heading in the same direction. We will have to find more information because that was new to me, but it appears to be the case””.—[Official Report, 8/5/07; col. 1410.]." I thought the sensible thing to do was to write to BRAK—the Minister has my letter—to ask whatis happening and what legislation the German Parliament is looking at. The answer has come back, and there are three relevant points. First, a legal services Bill is before the Bundestag; secondly, there is a controversial clause about adding new professions to the list of three with which lawyers may unite; and thirdly, on the point we have been talking about, the external funding, the relevant paragraph in the letter from Dr Dombek, the president of BRAK—which I immediately copied to the Minister—is: "““Regarding the Alternative Business Structures envisaged by Part 5 of the Legal Services Bill it is our understanding that firms authorised to provide legal services could have shareholders from outside the profession like banks and insurance companies. It is further our understanding that the management of such firms must not necessarily be in the hands of a majority of lawyers. The German draft bill … does not include legislative proposals in this direction. On the contrary, interested parties in Germany have lobbied the government and the political parties to allow third party investments into law firms. However both the Government and the politicians have rejected these proposals as, in their opinion third party investment would be a threat to the independence of the lawyer. Nobody should have the possibility to be able to determine a lawyer’s advice following economic interests. As the BRAK shares these concerns I took the liberty of writing my letter of 26 June 2006 to you and pointing out the difficulties that will arise for Anglo-German law firms in Germany if the firm or the lawyer decides to opt for third party investment””." On the basis of this information to the House, there is no indication whatever that the German Parliament is moving in a similar manner, and there is evidence that it is thought to be totally unacceptable to move in any such direction.