---

Legal Services Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 137ZC: 137ZC: Clause 147 , page 77, line 20, at end insert— ““(3) A report under subsection (1) may identify the respondent.”” The noble Lord said: The amendment is intended to put what I think is now the latest government thinking about better regulation into the Bill: that representational sanctions are as important and, often, have a greater effect in terms of both retribution and deterrence than financial and administrative sanctions. The Government recently accepted the recommendations of the Macrory report: not only that there should be an alternative approach to sanctions in total but that regulators should disclose to key stakeholders and the wider public when and against whom enforcement action has been taken. My noble friend may well argue that the Bill does not preclude that. That is certainly true, but it is also important that that is seen as part of the armoury of the new regulatory structure. I do not apologise for repeating the statistic that more than 33 per cent of all complaints to the Law Society under the old system emanated from 7 per cent of solicitors’ firms, yet neither the profession nor potential clients know the names of those firms which undermine the credibility and good standing of the rest of the profession. It is therefore important that the regulator, the OLC, should be able proactively and explicitly to name those who are subject to such sanction. I would not make that an absolute requirement. The OLC would have to decide whether it used that power in particular circumstances. The power would be primarily to deal with persistent offenders: the 7 per cent of firms who are creating such a bad image for the rest of the profession among the public. It would use it in that context, not necessarily when a single offence had been committed. It is important, however, that this principle of ““reputational sanction””, if you like, is in the Bill—there is a very good National Consumer Council pamphlet on reputation and regulation, which I commend to your Lordships. In this profession, probably more than most, it is a very important aspect of how the public view particular solicitors’ firms. It is, therefore, important that it is registered in the Bill. I beg to move.