5 minute read
Council Member's Report
ADRIENNE EDGERLEY HARRIS, Council Member YOUR VOICE AT THE LAW SOCIETY
Council Members Report February 2024
Since I last wrote, there have been Council meetings in December 2023 and January 2024. Key matters discussed included:
1. Size of Council: proposals are being considered to reduce the size of Council from its current 97 seats. When I was elected to the Hampshire and IOW seat two years ago, the boundaries had been changed and our area become the South Constituency, incorporating the North Hampshire seat into Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.
Council members have several concerns about further reduction, including that it would result in a challenge to represent a larger constituency; more work for those who remained; a possible danger of not being able to attract some categories of people, (such as younger people, younger parents, and early-to-mid career solicitors) and not ensuring diversity of representation. If you have any comments, please let me know.
2. Expenses and Allowances: travel and other HMRC allowable expenses can be claimed by Council Members. They are elected to their positions, which carry certain responsibilities. Until recently, elected representatives were also offered an allowance. Whilst it had no defined purpose, the small sum offered, offset trivial expenses such as parking or payments with no receipt and other unrecoverable items. It would also help towards lost income from taking leave to attend meetings – albeit the sum involved did not attempt to equate with earnings. The allowance has now been withdrawn. I am on a Working Party looking at what this payment is really for and whether it – or something else- ought to be reinstated. One view is that an allowance, or honorarium, is a recognition of effort and time put in to the role, which is often considerable. It seems the payment is likely to be deemed taxable income by HMRC. TLS does not want Council Members to be considered employees, with the impact of tax and other employment benefits, as opposed to being volunteers. On the other hand, there is a serious risk that the lack of an allowance might impede diversity on Council and inhibit full participation in the role. I’d be glad to hear your views.
3. Axiom Ince: this is being covered in the legal press and in the media. TLS is actively monitoring the situation, noting that it is constrained from interfering with the regulatory side of things which are now in the SRA’s domain. The involvement of the LSB will assist with this, although the President has expressed concern about the LSB extending in this way as it needs to focus on its core objectives. The clear worry is that the £33m losses from its collapse will not be covered by the Compensation Fund and that the profession will be asked by the SRA to contribute.
4. Criminal Legal Aid: there has been a welcome outcome to TLS’s judicial review, challenging the Government’s refusal to increase Criminal legal aid rates to the minimum amount of 15% recommended back in 2021. The Government must now review the level of payments. TLS is actively watching developments.
5. Carey Street: some of you will be aware that TLS owns a property, 60 Carey Street, around the corner from the main Law Society buildings in Chancery Lane. Its primary purpose is as a residence for the President. It also acts as a less conspicuous venue for hosting delicate meetings, such as with ministers and dignitaries (the “soft power” argument). It is a listed building and requires repair. Since covid, it has been underutilised. Council Members are being asked to vote on whether to keep it. If sold, alternative accommodation for the President would be purchased with some of the proceeds. The local council will only allow limited works to be carried out to enhance the interior, assist accessibility and extend its planning use. One section of Council considers there is a financial benefit in selling it and that such a building does not reflect a modern profession. Another sector is concerned about the use to which the sale funds might be put; that it is a valuable asset, unlikely to be replaced by something as significant; and recognising that owning an historic building is not in itself a reason for disposal. Further, whilst expenditure on repairs is needed, it has considerable soft power value. With commercial activity in Chancery Lane increasing, many areas of Carey Street might be adapted to benefit members and others. What is your view?
6. CILEX regulation: CILEX has consulted its members on its request to be regulated by the SRA. TLS has concerns about the proposals from CILEX and from the SRA. The latter says it will regulate solicitors and parts of the legal executive community separately, with some shared areas- enforcement, investigation and governance arrangements. TLS has responded to both bodies, noting that the proposals could risk consumer confusion and lead to a loss of confidence in the SRA’s regulatory capacity. There is no evidence to support the SRA’s proposals (such as a suggested increase in access to justice); it will be acting outside its corporate objects and regulatory remit and the proposal suggests a false equivalence between two distinct groups of professionals, creating confusion for the consumer. Many legal executives and solicitors work alongside each other in harmony, under the current system of separate regulation. I’d welcome your take on the proposals.
The matter will be brought back to Council to debate in due course and once the two bodies have published their responses to their consultations. TLS is also keeping in touch with the LSB, the oversight regulator. ■
Adrienne Edgerley Harris
aedgerleyharris@shentons.co.uk 01962 844544
