Westminster update: Law Society addresses the UK-EU reset in the House of Lords

Legal Services Board (LSB) report 

The LSB has released a report on the performance of legal regulators.

The assessment covers the period from June 2023 to September 2024. It assesses regulators leadership, effectiveness and operational delivery.

Law Society addresses the UK-EU reset in the House of Lords

Amidst global economic uncertainty, the importance of improving the UK’s trading relationship with the EU is at the forefront of parliament’s mind.

On Tuesday 1 April, the House of Lords European Affairs Committee were considering just that, with an inquiry session focussed on business mobility between the UK and our closest trading partners.

Marco Cillario, international policy manager at the Law Society, was called to give evidence, alongside representatives from the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) and the Independent Society of Musicians.

The discussion ranged from youth mobility to mutual recognition of professional qualifications (MRPQ) and allowed us to set out our position on:

• the UK-EU reset
• what the government should be prioritising in their negotiations with the European Commission in the run-up to the review of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA)

Each panel member stressed that the current Brexit deal does not go far enough when it comes to the ability of business professionals to move between the UK and the EU and offer paid services.

For the legal sector, this includes issues with implementation of the TCA in certain member states and the ability for English solicitors to practice their home country law across the EU.

The negotiator of the current framework, Lord Frost (Conservative), is a member of the committee. He posed that the services sector has been doing relatively well post-Brexit and asked why this is the case.

We were clear that it is it is precisely because the services industries have been so successful that it needs more support.

The legal sector, as well as the architecture sector, is a partner in the government’s growth agenda and facilitates other business around the world.

The session moved on to the importance of mutual recognition of professional qualifications arrangements for each profession.

We set out why the UK-Switzerland mutual recognition of professional qualifications (MRPQ) agreement is the legal sector’s preferred model for the government to pursue.

In his concluding remarks, we stressed the importance of the upcoming UK-EU summit in May.

We urged the government to engage with UK and EU businesses, as well as the Domestic Advisory Group.

The committee will continue to hear evidence from a range of stakeholders on the reset, before producing a report with recommendations for the government.

Mental Health Bill: Law Society amendments debated

As peers debate safeguards for vulnerable individuals, our amendments to the Mental Health Bill were referred to as “important” and “convincing” during report stage proceedings.

On Monday, Baroness Browning (Conservative) opened the debate by raising her amendment one to strengthen safeguards for detaining individuals with learning difficulties or autism who do not have a mental health condition.

Speaking on her amendment, Baroness Browning thanked the “Law Society, which I am grateful to for drafting this particular amendment”.

In response, the minister representing the government, Baroness Merron, agreed with the principle behind the amendment but that “there are limited circumstances where it might be appropriate to use the Mental Capacity Act to ensure that patients get the right support”.

She also noted the current number of people detained under this method is around five and that the government will commit to monitor the situation.

Baroness Merron said that if, as a result of the bill, the number of people being detained inappropriately under the MCA increases, the government will ensure that appropriate action is taken.

Earl Howe (Conservative) also spoke on his amendment 15, noting that this issue “has been brought to my attention by the Law Society relating to nasogastric tube feeding of patients in mental hospitals”.

"The central concern here is that the Mental Health Act 1983 contains no specific safeguards for situations where nasogastric tube feeding of a patient is being proposed.”

He noted specific data and a case study all provided by the Law Society to exemplify why further safeguards are needed.

In response, Baroness Merron hoped to reassure the house by saying that “there are already regulation-making powers in the act that can be used to place treatment under different safeguards.

"However, I can say today that we are committed to engaging with stakeholders on whether revisions need to be made on this front, including in relation to artificial nutrition, and I hope that will be welcomed.”

Baroness Merron did not mention the specific data.

Amendment 15 was not moved by Earl Howe, although he highlighted that he “was glad to hear that discussions would be taken forward with the professions in the mental health sector”.

"I hope that the Law Society’s concerns will be taken into account in those discussions.”

Lastly, Lord Meston (Crossbench) spoke on his amendment 51 to provide a statutory basis for determining the competence of a child under 16 to make decisions for the purposes of this bill and the Mental Health Act 1983.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green) noted her support for the amendment, explaining that she does “not claim any particular expertise here, but my intention to do this was strengthened by the joint briefing from the Law Society, Mind and the Children and Young People’s Mental Health Coalition”.

Baroness Merron responded that the government believes “that the Mental Health Act is not the appropriate legislative vehicle to set out a statutory test for competence for under-16s, and nor would it be appropriate to seek to establish a test in a single setting”.

She also noted that “We will consult on the statutory guidance for assessing competence in mental health settings, as I have mentioned, in the revised code of practice. I hope that will meet the intention to provide further clarity”.

Amendment 51 was not moved.

Business secretary sets out the UK's response to US tariffs

Wednesday 2 April was a significant moment for international trade, with the UK facing a 10% tariff on all goods entering the USA and an unchanged 25% tariff on the automotive sector.

The policy decision and the UK’s response will have knock-on impacts for the whole UK economy.

On Thursday 3 April, the business and trade secretary Jonathan Reynolds addressed the Commons to set out the government’s response.

He did not take retaliatory tariffs off the table, but was clear he is prioritising a trade deal that removes the need for tariffs.

Reynolds set out that the UK has a strong and balanced trading relationship with the US.

Seemingly in response to Trump’s rhetoric on unfair and unbalanced trade, he mentioned ‘balance’ multiple times in his statement.

He stressed that the economic importance of the US is second only to the EU.

He was clear that no country was able to secure an exemption to the tariffs and that he is disappointed that we have been left with a 10% tariff on goods and an unchanged 25% on the automotive sector.

Despite this, he was keen to thank his US counterparts for their engagement over the last few months.

He went on to set out how he believes the UK can navigate the announcement.

He stressed that intensive discussions on an economic agreement between the US and the UK are continuing.

This includes talks on everything from defence, security and technology.

Ahead of the statement, he had been in contact with businesses across sectors and noted that they welcome the UK government’s cool-headed approach.

As part of this continued engagement, the government is launching a request for input to British business on the impact of potential retaliatory action, seeking the views of UK stakeholders over the next month.

However, if a trade deal is negotiated, this exercise will be paused and if retaliatory measures are already in place they will be lifted.

Reynolds closed by stressing that the government will continue to turbo-boost the UK economy through the industrial strategy and trade deals with other countries, adding that the Department for Business and Trade will publish the trade strategy imminently.

Lord chancellor blocks new sentencing guidelines

The lord chancellor, Shabana Mahmood, has introduced new legislation to stop guidelines coming into effect that would have required a court to consider ordering a pre-sentencing report if an offender belonged to certain racial, religious or other backgrounds.

Mahmood said the guidelines risked creating a justice system where outcomes could be influenced by race, culture or religion.

In a statement to parliament on Tuesday 1 April, the lord chancellor outlined plans to introduce the legislation, with the ambition that it become law as quickly as possible.

The Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill was published later that day.

It will prevent sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports from not including provisions “framed by reference to different personal characteristics of an offender”.

The bill will have its second reading in the House of Commons on 22 April, before moving into committee stage on 30 April.

Mahmood argued that, through the publication of the new guidelines, the Sentencing Council had become involved in a question of policy rather than just its application.

Though she did acknowledge the “noble” intentions behind the guidelines, to reduce inequalities in the justice system.

She felt this was an issue to be resolved in parliament, in part because the public could then hold politicians to account for their decisions at the ballot box.

Coming up

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