Westminster update: MPs debate independent Leveson review

Independent review finds lack of SRA leadership failed to protect consumers

An independent review by the Legal Services Board investigated how failings in Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) oversight left consumers exposed in the SSB Group collapse.

Read the review and what must be done to restore public confidence in legal regulation

MPs debate independent Leveson review proposals

MPs debated the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts (Part 1) during a Westminster Hall debate on Tuesday 14 October, Ied by Sir Jeremy Wright KC (Conservative).

The debate focused on recommendations made in Sir Brian Leveson’s independent review, which aim to address the growing crisis in the criminal courts of England and Wales.

We briefed parliamentarians ahead of the debate. Many of the issues we raised were echoed by MPs, including concerns about restricting jury trials and the state of the courts.

Justice Select Committee chair Andy Slaughter (Labour) cited our warnings that the reforms could limit defendants’ rights.

Meanwhile, Ayoub Khan (Independent) argued that the reforms risk undermining public trust, especially in marginalised communities, and should be evidence-based and reversible.

Shadow justice minister Dr Kieran Mullan and Liberal Democrat justice spokesperson Jess Brown-Fuller also opposed limiting jury trials, describing them as a fundamental pillar of justice.

Counter-arguments acknowledged the need to balance these rights against severe backlogs in the Crown Court and their impact on access to justice.

MPs from across parties discussed the need to invest in better infrastructure, the legal aid system and court staffing.

Brown-Fuller also referenced our recent state of the courts report, noting that it “revealed that two-thirds of solicitors have experienced delayed court hearings due to the poor state of court buildings.”

Minister Sarah Sackman affirmed that jury trials would remain central for serious crimes and that the government would consider all proposals in the review.

She reflected that the justice system is facing a period of crisis and acknowledged that any measures must be part of a holistic package alongside investment and reforms across the system.

Law Society gives oral evidence to Finance Bill committee

On Monday 13 October, Lydia Challen, co-chair of our Tax Law Committee, gave oral evidence to a committee of peers overseeing scrutiny for the draft Finance Bill.

The session considered strengthening the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes (DOTAS) regime from only applying in civil proceedings to also cover criminal charges.

When asked whether extending the punishment to criminal charges was appropriate, Challen responded that the hallmarks in the bill for highlighting potential wrongdoing are too wide.

This could potentially lead to disproportionate consequences when well-meaning tax advisers make mistakes, for which Challen noted that criminal charges wouldn't be necessary.

The next two questions both focused on the bill’s aim to target '20–30 bad actors' and the realistic chances of prosecuting them, considering they tend to be based in other jurisdictions.

Challen supported the government’s desire to target malevolent actors but argued that the measures as drafted in the bill are not sufficiently targeted.

Baroness Bowles (Liberal Democrat) asked whether schemes could be required to get prior authorisation before becoming eligible for consumers as a solution.

Challen and the panel disagreed with this notion as the authorisation process would need to be significantly fleshed out, which would potentially drive advisers from the sector.

Lord Pitkeathley (Labour) asked whether there had been enough time to implement the views of various stakeholders into the bill.

Challen argued that the immense complexity of untangling how malevolent actors avoid tax requires more time than has been given to considering the bill.

Challen finally noted that no competent adviser would want a criminal offence for a mistake in their work.

While she recognised the government’s good intent, the answer in this bill appeared to be a “sledgehammer to crack a persistent nut”.

Government frustrates attempts to amend Mental Health Bill

During reporting stage debates on the Mental Health Bill on Tuesday 14 October, Josh Dean (Labour) highlighted the joint amendment backed by the Law Society, Mind and the Young People’s Mental Health Coalition, which seeks a statutory test for under-16s’ competency.

Gillick competence is a legal test from case law determining whether a child under 16 can consent to their own medical treatment if they fully understand what it involves.

Dean noted that the joint committee argued that Gillick competence is “broad”, “ambiguous” and that there were significant inconsistencies in its application.

Shadow health secretary Dr Luke Evans spoke on his amendment to ensure that a nominated person for the under-16 individual has parental rights, unless there are safeguarding issues.

Iqbal Mohammed (Independent) also spoke on new clause 13, which requires hospitals to have a named person responsible for overseeing race equality in how the Mental Health Act is applied.

He asserted that the government must “confront the deep inequalities that still shape people’s experience of mental health care” to bring about better care. This amendment was not moved to a vote.

Jen Craft (Labour) spoke on her new clause 37, which would make sure that the government have to set out, within six months of this bill receiving royal assent, a road map that engages in a co-productive way with people with learning disabilities or autism, their advocates and organisations that champion their rights.

In response, the minister of state for care Stephen Kinnock noted that “reviews will happen within 28 days of detention, and at least once a year during detention. This can be more frequent, depending on needs”.

He also committed to working with stakeholders to shape the road map for the changes to clause 3.

Kinnock noted that the government would not be accepting any amendments to the bill, instead highlighting further investment and reiterating the bill’s aims of improving patient care.

The Lords will now consider the Commons amendments.

Coming up

We are working closely with MPs and peers to influence a number of bills before Parliament:

• Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill will begin its report stage in the Lords on 28 October
• Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill will begin its report stage in the Lords on a date to be confirmed
• Crime and Policing Bill will begin a committee stage in the Lords on a date to be confirmed
• Employment Rights Bill will begin a consideration of Commons amendments in the Lords on 28 October
• Mental Health Bill will begin a consideration of Commons amendments on a date to be confirmed
• Planning and Infrastructure Bill will begin its report stage in the Lords on 20 October
• Public Office (Accountability) Bill will begin its second reading in the Commons on a date to be confirmed
• Renters’ Rights Bill will begin a consideration of Lords message on 22 October
• Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is being reviewed by a select committee before the Committee of the Whole House, starting on 22 October
• Sentencing Bill will begin its committee stage in the Commons on 21 October