Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Will Quince

Monday 27th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

20. What steps she is taking to provide support for people who require additional help transitioning to universal credit.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)]

The Department is working with a range of organisations to support claimants transitioning to universal credit, building on the success of the Help to Claim scheme, which is delivered by Citizens Advice and has helped more than 180,000 people. From April 2020, a new £10 million transitional fund will provide extra help to the most vulnerable, improving access to welfare and labour market opportunities.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

If someone is on a four-weekly payment cycle, they will be paid twice in one month every year. That cocks up their universal credit claim as well as their cash flow. Until we fix the system, would a simple solution not be to give an interest-free loan to tide them over that period?

[Will Quince]

I am getting a strong steer that Members would like me to take a good look at this policy area, and I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestion. As he knows, we are always looking at ways to improve the UC system. The amount of UC paid to claimants reflects as closely as possible the actual circumstances of a household during each monthly assessment period, and those periods align to the way that the majority of employees are paid. I am of course willing to look into the issue, though, and am happy to meet my hon. Friend in due course.

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Will Quince

Wednesday 7th February 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Gray. I understand the hon. Lady’s argument on making leave arrangements more flexible and I have much sympathy with it. Certainly, we heard such arguments from many different sources, including people who have been bereaved who contacted us through social media. Many charities, such as Cruse Bereavement Care, Elliot’s footprint, Together for Short Lives and the National Bereavement Alliance also made the point that the period of 52 days was too short and they wanted longer. That was for a number of reasons, some of which the hon. Lady outlined, such as autopsies and inquests, which can often happen well beyond those first 52 days.

There are substantive reasons why we might want to look at a longer timescale. We need to strike a balance, of course, between the needs of the employee and the understanding of the employer. We have said throughout consideration of the Bill in Committee that we expect these to be the minimum standards that employers might follow. It would be sensible to consult further on those measures.

[Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)]

That is certainly something I gave due consideration to when drafting the first incarnation of the Bill. I have huge sympathy with the points that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran made about flexibility. We have heard lots of very good representations from charities and different organisations in the field, but we have not heard from business. We have always said that we have to be fair to business and to those who have suffered this tragic loss.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes a good point: we need to engage with all the stakeholders in the consultation to ensure we get it right. I heed the calls of many hon. Members, especially the hon. Members for Lincoln (Karen Lee) and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who have made such points in previous debates.

If the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran agrees to withdraw the amendment, I ask that she and other hon. Members work closely with officials and the Department to feed into the consultation, which will be held later this year to consider some of these points in more detail, including the period in which leave may be taken and how flexibly it may be taken. I am very sympathetic to a longer period, but I ask that we deal with it in that way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The difficulties would be in redrafting legislation and ensuring consideration of the needs of employers. There are issues with HMRC to do with how payments are made and the ability to look at a single day, rather than two single-week blocks or a two-week block. It makes things more complicated for both the provisions and the regulations. I go back to the point about employers—the Bill is a signal to employers, although I absolutely accept what the hon. Lady is saying. Would any reasonable employer giver their employee time off for a funeral? The answer has to be yes.

[Will Quince]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Will Quince]

It seems greedy to table so many amendments on such an important subject: the inclusion of bereaved parents of stillborn babies. The amendments are probing because I want the Committee to give the subject due consideration. For Members who are not aware, a stillbirth is defined as a child stillborn after the 24th week of pregnancy. Anyone who suffers a stillbirth after 24 weeks is entitled to full maternity or paternity leave in the same way that any parent that loses a child who is technically born, who draws breath, is entitled to the same statutory paternity or maternity leave.

As the Bill is drafted, the parents of babies that draw breath would be entitled to statutory parental bereavement leave in addition to their statutory paternity and maternity leave, whereas the parents of stillborn babies would not. The Bill by its nature must have arbitrary cut-offs. We have just debated eligibility in terms of definition, and to some extent this is no different. There is currently a disparity between parents of a child who drew breath and those of a child who did not. Luckily, parents of all babies, whether stillborn or those who die neonatally, would be entitled to those rights afforded at present as part of the statutory maternity and paternity; the discrepancy is between a stillbirth and a live birth. There is a piece of work to be done on including parents of stillborn children, because at the moment there is an unfairness between them and those who lose a child neonatally.

There would be a financial implication from including parents who suffer a stillbirth as well as those who suffer a neonatal death, but it is worth considering nevertheless. For parents who lose a child neonatally, some would say, “Why should they get statutory paternity leave, because they are already entitled to their maternity or paternity rights?” I would argue that it would be bolted on in any event, but do not forget that a lot of parents—men in particular—may take paternity leave and lose their child after those two weeks. It is therefore right that fathers in particular should be entitled to those additional two weeks, and it should also be afforded to mothers in addition to their maternity leave. We should seriously consider including those parents who suffer a stillbirth in the scope of the Bill.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am not entirely clear about the protocol, so I will ask your advice, Mr Gray. At various stages of the Bill, we have heard moving stories about lives lost of both children who have lived and those who were stillborn. Of course, many of those stories have come from members of the Committee, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury and for Banbury and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester made an impassioned contribution. If I may, I would like to listen to further remarks before I make my contributions and we decide on any amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am very grateful to the Minister for his consideration. This is something that we have discussed much in our deliberations, both with Committee members and in the House at various stages.

Stillbirth was first brought to my attention because of my constituents Annika and James Dowson—my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury and for Eddisbury are very aware of their case—and their little daughter, Gypsy. They said they had never heard their baby cry, which must be a desperate state of affairs for anyone who has been through those tragic events. They directed their grief into a very positive campaign to raise money to fund a bereavement suite at Scarborough hospital. It is tremendous to see the resilience and determination that people show in these circumstances; I am not sure I could do the same.

Luke and Ruthie Heron are also constituents of mine. Their little son, Eli, was brought into this world at 23 weeks and six days. He lived for two days. He was stillborn. Had he not lived for those two days, it would have been defined as a miscarriage. This is being discussed in relation to legislation going through the House at the moment. I have constituents who have experience of this.

I am delighted that the Government have agreed to support the amendments. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran was the first hon. Member to table an amendment on the matter. I am sure that the Government’s support for the other amendment is a purely technical decision, not a political one—it is about drafting. They have done a tremendous job of ensuring that we get the legislation right, so that we do not suffer any negative consequences later on. I ask the hon. Members for North Ayrshire, for Glasgow East and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North not to press their amendments and instead to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester.

[Will Quince]

I place on record my huge thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton. It is actually a bit of a surprise that the Government support my amendment, which I tabled relatively speculatively because there was a debate to be had. However, the fact that the Government have accepted the argument will be of huge benefit to the parents of the circa 3,000 children who are stillborn every year in this country. I hope that that number will go down year on year; the all-party group on baby loss is certainly working on that. I thank the Minister for his support and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran for her amendments, which are in a similar vein to mine and would have largely the same effect. We are all on the same page, so I thank all hon. Members for their cross-party support.

Amendment 25 agreed to.

Amendments made: 26, in schedule, page 4, leave out lines 29 to 35 and insert—

“80EE Application in relation to stillbirths

In this Chapter—

(a) references to a child include a child stillborn after twenty-four weeks of pregnancy, and

(b) references to the death of a child are to be read, in relation to a stillborn child, as references to the birth of the child.”

This amendment extends the provisions about parental bereavement leave to bereaved parents of stillborn children.

Amendment 27, in schedule, page 4, line 37, leave out “, 80EE”.—(Will Quince.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 26.

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Will Quince

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

This is a place of debate and discussion, but there are no words that could possibly describe or give comfort when people talk of their personal experiences of losing a child. We have all heard stories in the Chamber and are humbled by them. It is important that we hear the personal experiences and tragedies to make sure that we consider the points around the legislation and to connect us to the wider world of other people who have suffered terrible experiences.

Defining a parent is without a doubt one of the toughest jobs we have here. In the world we live in, there are lots of different people who would consider themselves parents and lots of children who might define that in different ways than we might. Through the engagement we have had through Facebook and with charities on the issue, stories about all kinds of different elements that need to be properly considered have been relayed.

On Facebook, Mandy Ruston told us about her partner, not a biological parent, who, after they lost their child in a hit-and-run accident, was told by his employer to return to work in the early days after that tragedy. That is a situation that I am sure we would want to cover. Nicky Clifford talks about the child’s grandparents, who felt they suffered a double loss when Mrs Clifford’s son died. Together for Short Lives, along with Holly Simon, who contacted us on Facebook, believe that leave should be extended to legal guardians, working grandparents, aunts and uncles. The Rainbow Trust, which does such fine work providing support for families where children are diagnosed with life-threatening or terminal illnesses, felt we should extend the leave and pay to legal guardians such as foster carers, a point covered by the amendment. Unison, which represents 1.3 million trade union members, proposes the definition of a parent be set as wide as possible, including legal guardians and those with formal parenting responsibility.

I do not think we have time in this Committee to look at such matters in their totality. There is much debate and, although it is useful to consider the issues and it is very good to hear different perspectives from Committee members, I return to the point about the fragility of the Bill and the time we have to consider it in Committee and the Chamber. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury stated, this is a framework Bill that allows the powers to be debated and discussed properly and to go through consultation to ensure we get this right.

[Will Quince]

There are all sorts of amendments before us today and lots of us would like the Bill to go further than it does. There are many reasons why that is not practical or necessarily the right thing to do at the moment. Will my hon. Friend confirm that this is the beginning of the process? As we have seen with many other pieces of legislation, they get amended over time to increase the scope, bring more people in and provide further rights, but it has to start with a statute.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We all want to see this legislation on the statute books. To borrow a phrase I heard the Minister use, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. We need to get this legislation through, so I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

This is not only an enabling framework piece of legislation, but a signal to employers. It gives the minimum possible standard that employers should give to their employees. I am an employer outside this place—as well as inside it, as we all are. I am sure if one our team members suffered a tragedy such as this—whether they were a grandparent, a brother, an uncle, or, obviously, a parent—we would all be considerate and give time off. I imagine we would give time off at full pay, rather than statutory pay. That is what we expect.

Today we are setting the signal and framework, not just in the legislation but for employers to recognise the terrible tragedies and the impact on their workforce. I do not want to agree to amendments at this stage because of issues around timing and proper consideration. We could end up in ping-pong with the other place, with redrafting and other ideas about the definition of a parent, which would take time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury made some very good points about examples of parents—biological parents, step-parents by virtue of marriage or civil partnership, the mother or father at the time of birth, and adoptive parents. It is absolutely right to consider all of those. The concern would be about who we are missing, as that is probably not an exhaustive list. We need to consider this properly.

I have often heard the hon. Member for Swansea East speak with passion about these issues. I accept many of her arguments, such as including a person with parental responsibility or a foster parent. It is absolutely right that we should consider those. I have those same concerns but I am also concerned to ensure that the legislation gets through in good shape and good time, and that we have a parallel process for consultation on the definition of a parent in order to get it absolutely right.

I would be in favour of widening that as much as possible but we clearly need to have consideration for employers as well, to ensure that we get this right. I know that the Minister has officials from his Department looking at consultation on the definition of a qualifying parent. It is important to consider the outcome of that consultation. I am sure the Minister and his Department’s officials will do that. We will make sure that we properly consider these issues.

I encourage all Members to continue to input into the process to ensure that we get this right, without making a firm decision at this point. I hope my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Swansea East agree it is sensible not to press the amendments. To ensure we get this right, we will give it proper further consideration to ensure we have a proper, systemic approach to define accurately a parent in this regard.

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Will Quince

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 20th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have left some details out of the Bill to allow more time for consultation on topics just like that one. Clearly the legislation cannot just be about biological parents. Adoptive parents should get the same benefits that the Bill provides. There are other such circumstances to discuss, so we want the maximum possible opportunity for consultation and submission of evidence, and for debate on these matters so that we ensure that we get the Bill right.

Leave will be paid at the statutory rate for those who fulfil the qualifying period of 26 weeks’ service the week before the child’s passing away. The Bill allows the rate to be set in regulations so that it can be uprated regularly in the normal way, but that is the level at which I envisage the rate will be set. That mirrors existing family leave and pay provisions, such as paternity leave, shared parental leave, adoption leave, and maternity leave after the first six weeks. That strikes a fair balance between the rights of the employee and a workable framework for the employer, but it is clearly the minimum we would expect the employer to provide.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) talked about flexibility, and that is my next point. It is widely recognised that grief affects people in different ways and at different times, and that there are no set rules for how and when to grieve. A level of flexibility over when to take this leave will allow an employee to take it at a time that best suits them, within a fixed period following the bereavement.

Hon. Members will have different opinions about how long that period should be, and there is clearly a balance to be struck between the individual needs of a bereaved employee and the employer’s need for a level of certainty around absences from work so that they can manage those effectively. With that in mind, the Bill provides for the window to be set in regulations, with a minimum of eight weeks within which these two weeks of leave must be taken.

[Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind and generous words. I know we had a conversation about this in drafting the Bill, and I welcome the 56 days, but we know that fathers, in particular, often bottle up grief and can have issues further down the line, so I would ask that we consider extending the period to six months. I appreciate the concerns about employers, but that would give parents flexibility.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and there are so many different circumstances—in certain circumstances, a funeral may be delayed. We need to consider that issue, and I am keen to hear views on it.

Eligibility is another area we need to have a debate on. In terms of my current thinking on who is considered to be a parent, the Government and I did quite a lot of consultation over the summer. It was apparent early on that the issue of who is a parent is key to ensuring the right people are reached and to the success of the Bill.

Baby Loss

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Will Quince

Thursday 13th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)]

It is an honour to co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss and a privilege to follow the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), who is an active member of the group.

I should like to share some statistics, some of which have already been shared with the House, but repetition is important in this case, so that we have a real understanding of the scale. One in four pregnancies end in miscarriage. One in 200 babies are stillborn in the UK. About 15 babies die each day either before, during or shortly after birth in the UK. There are about 3,500 stillbirths every year in the UK. Half of all stillbirths are said to be preventable. The rate of stillbirth in the UK is higher than in Poland, Croatia and Estonia. The lives of 2,000 babies could be saved every year if the UK matched the best survival rates in Europe.

It is a great honour to follow all those right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken so far and shared such harrowing accounts of what has happened to them. In particular, I should like to praise—I do not want to appear patronising in any way—and to say how proud I am of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft), who is a good friend of mine, for giving her account in such a powerful and emotional way. I want to make it absolutely clear that I genuinely believe that we are doing something very special in the Chamber today. We are breaking a silence; we are breaking a taboo; and we are showing parents up and down this country that it is okay to talk about the babies and children we have lost. In fact, it is more than okay; where we feel that we are able to, we should. I hope that people across this country have seen today that there is no subject that we will not debate and talk about in the mother of all Parliaments if doing so will improve the lives of others.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. On his point about inspiring people to come forward, what he describes is exactly what happened to Luke and Ruthie Heron, constituents of mine. Their son Eli was born after 23 weeks and six days. He lived for two and a half days further. Had he not lived those two and a half days, he would have been considered a miscarriage, rather than a short life. Grief cannot be measured in hours, days or weeks. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should reconsider the time criteria that determine when a life is considered a life?

[Will Quince]

Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. The all-party parliamentary group is very much looking at that. He is absolutely right to say how important this is. There are people who have suffered what is currently termed a miscarriage when—let us be clear—we are talking about a life, a baby. However, because of our abortion laws and all sorts of other rules and regulations, we are not allowed to register that life and give that baby a name. We are certainly looking at that.

Conveyancing

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Will Quince

Tuesday 7th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the conveyancing process.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Percy, and I thank the Minister for being present today to respond on behalf of the Government. I refer you to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because Spicerhaart estate agent kindly provides a regular donation in kind by printing my parliamentary “Reporting Back” publication. I was also a practising property solicitor, although I gave that up on election to this place.

As a nation, we have long held home ownership to be a valued tradition. This Government have done much to promote home ownership and to make it easier for people to get on to the property ladder. Once someone has saved a sufficient sum for a deposit, perhaps utilised a Government scheme such as Help to Buy, and found a house to purchase, however, the conveyancing process kicks in, and recent mortgage research from Which? suggests that seven in 10 people who have bought or sold a home have found it to be nerve-racking and the biggest source of stress apart from getting a divorce. Having a child, changing jobs and arranging care for an elderly relative are all said to be less stressful than getting involved in the property market.

Are we surprised by that? A person or couple have put in their offer and instructed a conveyancer. They pay a retainer to the conveyancer to cover the cost of searches, which is about £200; for a survey, which is between £200 and £600; and any fee due to their mortgage adviser. They also complete a load of paperwork, and then wait and wait until their conveyancer informs them that they are in a position to exchange contracts. If one gets to that point, the house is under contract and people can breathe a sigh of relief. To be clear, up to and until that point, either party may pull out of the transaction, and usually no costs are recoverable. But is that okay because such cases are rare? No. More than one in five property transactions fall through each year—around 200,000—and about £270 million is wasted annually on legal fees and surveys for failed house purchases.

As I mentioned, by way of background, I was a practising solicitor specialising in residential property, so I worked in this area of law and have first-hand experience of the frustration of the conveyancing process in England and Wales. I am not, however, a poacher turned gamekeeper, because although conveyancers are far from blame free, the issues that need addressing are largely with the system and the process. Conveyancers are often demonised, because they are the day-to-day contact with their clients and the venting point for frustration, but in many cases they are not responsible for the numerous obstacles that can arise as part of the house-buying or selling process.

At the end of last year, I was pleased to see that Her Majesty’s Treasury and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills announced plans for a call for evidence to explore

“options to deliver better value and make the experience of buying a home more consumer-friendly.”

That is no easy task, but I am delighted that the Government are taking it up. Recognising the issue is the first step, although I fear that finding possible solutions will not be as easy.

I will touch on some of the obstacles and frustrations in the conveyancing process, with my observations. Residential conveyancing is covered by the doctrine of caveat emptor—let the buyer beware. The purchaser’s conveyancer is therefore responsible for checking the title and undertaking relevant searches and surveys. That leads to detailed inquiries and, despite the Law Society trying to curb them where they are general, they still represent a considerable administrative burden. The burden is also on the purchaser’s conveyancer to be satisfied on behalf of purchasers and, in most cases, their mortgage lender. There would therefore be considerable merit in clarifying the extent of a conveyancer’s obligation to the client and mortgage lender.

Gazumping is the practice of buyers outbidding those who have already had an offer accepted. The practice causes huge frustration and disappointment for buyers who think they have secured their dream home, only to find that they lose it in a heartbeat to someone with deeper pockets. It also means that those buyers, who lose out regularly, end up paying for abortive legal costs, mortgage consultant fees and survey fees, which can run into thousands of pounds, adding insult to injury. Gazumping accounts for 21% of collapsed sales, while only 15% are because the buyer pulls out at the last minute. The answer could be a financial commitment pre-contract, which would be forfeit should the seller, without warning, raise the price or pull out of the sale.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. The last time a Government looked at gazumping was under Labour, which set out to tackle it, but actually tackled a completely different problem and introduced the ill-fated home information pack. Does he agree that any proposal to change legislation should involve the industry, including estate agents—I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—and the legal profession, to ensure that any changes are beneficial to the process?

[Will Quince]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, because he is right: any change that the Government make has to be in association and after consultation with the industry, which is estate agents, solicitors, licensed conveyancers and surveyors—everyone involved. If we do not take them with us, any change will simply not work.

Long chains are commonplace in the conveyancing process. They can cause considerable delays to buying and selling. Although chains can be and do get broken, it is not easy, and action such as encouraging short-term lets could provide an answer. There is no question in my mind but that the simplification and standardisation of the mortgage application process would be a good first measure to consider, potentially including an industry standard of instructions and documents for the conveyancers to deal with. I recall the minefield that, in practice, is the Council of Mortgage Lenders handbook, with parts 1, 2 and 3, and all lenders having differing requirements. Reducing or standardising that handbook would lead to a reduction in the work that a conveyancer needs to do, therefore considerably speeding up the process.

There is a strong argument for deciding on agreed protocols and procedures in the conveyancing process. I recall that, in practice, it was only when a sale was agreed, conveyancers instructed and a retainer paid that property information protocol forms would be sent out to clients. Those forms are far from simple and take several hours, if not days, to complete, which means at least a week of delay before they are returned to the conveyancer to be sent on to the purchaser’s conveyancer. Comprehensive and standardised questionnaires would create consistency, and enable those selling a property to complete the forms when the property is originally put on the market.

Furthermore, I argue that estate agents have a part to play. They could be obliged to obtain basic information when a property is first marketed, and they could provide more detailed standardised property questionnaires from the conveyancer for the seller to complete while a buyer is being sought for the property. That might shave at least a week off the conveyancing process.

To remain on estate agents, several pieces of legislation affect them, in particular the Estate Agents Act 1979 and the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991. However, things have clearly moved on since then, and I suggest that we might need to review the existing legislation to make it fit for purpose. If, for example, estate agents were licensed—a potential option—the other regulated professionals, such as surveyors and solicitors, would have more confidence in relying on them to manage their part of the conveyancing process.

Currently, landlords and managing agents charge for information about leasehold properties and, in my experience, it often took weeks to receive the information. That causes considerable delays, especially when there is a chain of leasehold properties, which in our great capital city is commonplace. Regulation of the sector dealing with leasehold properties could be the answer, including, for example, minimum response times and a centrally held database of management packs, particularly for large blocks.

Finally, I will reserve some of my fire for my former profession. The move towards factory conveyancing with ridiculously low fees is not only leading to delays, but potentially costing clients. As fees fall, the margins fall and firms need to take on more and more work to remain profitable. That means that many conveyancers are reactive instead of proactive not out of choice but out of necessity. It is the client who then suffers as conveyancers cannot meet their rightly high expectations. Trade bodies have tried to address that by introducing specialist conveyancing credentials such as the kitemark. They have played some part in driving consumer choice, but ultimately—this is my experience and I think the industry would support me in this—the vast majority of clients are primarily motivated by the fee instead of the credentials of the conveyancer. That often leads to lots of complaints being made retrospectively—“I wish I’d used another firm. I wish I’d looked into it.”