315

House of Commons

Tuesday 19th June 2007

Public Bill Committee

New Amendments handed in are marked thus

Other Amendments not tabled within the required notice period are marked thus

Legal Services Bill [Lords]

---

Note

The Amendments have been arranged in accordance with the Order of the

Committee [12th June 2007].

Clause 15

Amendment proposed in page 7, line 15, at end insert—

‘( )	Where P is an independent trade union, persons provided with relevant services

by virtue of—

(a)	their membership or former membership of P, or

(b)	another person’s membership or former membership of P,

do not constitute the public or a section of the public.’.—(Bridget Prentice.)

Question proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Members’ explanatory statement

The effect of this amendment is that an independent trade union falls under Clause 15(4), and

therefore does not need to be entitled, when it carries out certain member services that are re­

served legal activities. The individual through whom the union carries on such services will still

have to be entitled.

Bridget Prentice

109

Clause  15,  page  7,  line  16,  after ‘(6)’, insert ‘Subject to that,’.

Members’ explanatory statement

This amendment provides that orders under Clause 15(6) are subject to the provision at amend­

Public Bill Committee: 19th June 2007

316

Legal Services Bill-[Lords], continued

ment 108.

Simon Hughes

John Hemming

269

Clause  17,  page  8,  line  22,  at end insert—

‘(4)	All persons claiming to be entitled to carry on any activity which is a reserved

legal activity shall have a duty to make clearly known to each client, at the

beginning of their dealings with each other—

(a)	their professional title and qualifications; and

(b)	the most senior member of the firm to whom they are accountable.’.

Mr Jonathan Djanogly

Mr Henry Bellingham

Mr Tobias Ellwood

256

Clause  18,  page  8,  line  32,  at end insert—

‘(c)	A body, which is not a licensable body, but which carries on a relevant

activity by virtue of Section [Registration of non-authorised managers]’.

Members’ explanatory statement

See Members’ explanatory statement for NC14.

Bridget Prentice

129

Schedule  3,  page  130,  line  14,  leave out from ‘individual’ to ‘in’ in line 15 and

insert ‘whose work includes assisting’.

Members’ explanatory statement

This amends paragraph 1(7)(a) of Schedule 3 in order to clarify the category of persons who, if

appropriately supervised, are exempt from the requirement to be authorised in order to exercise

rights of audience. It is intended to ensure that, for example, partners in a partnership can be ex­

empt.

Bridget Prentice

130

Schedule  3,  page  131,  line  37,  leave out paragraph (b).

Members’ explanatory statement

This amendment removes paragraph 3(4)(b) from the Bill on the basis that this provision is no

longer necessary given the effect of amendment 131.

Public Bill Committee: 19th June 2007

317

Legal Services Bill-[Lords], continued

Bridget Prentice

131

Schedule  3,  page  131,  line  39,  leave out paragraphs (d) to (f) and insert—

‘( )	P is a manager or employee of a body which is an authorised person in

relation to the activity, and E is also a manager or employee of that

body.’.

Members’ explanatory statement

This amendment replaces paragraphs 3(4)(d) to (f), which identify connected persons in specific

kinds of bodies, with a more general provision which identifies connected persons in any body

which is an authorised person. It will, for example, cover recognised bodies which are partner­

ships.

Bridget Prentice

132

Schedule  3,  page  133,  line  10,  leave out paragraph (b).

Members’ explanatory statement

This amendment removes paragraph 4(3)(b) from the Bill on the basis that this provision is no

longer necessary given the effect of amendment 133.

Bridget Prentice

133

Schedule  3,  page  133,  line  12,  leave out paragraphs (d) and (e) and insert—

‘( )	P is a manager or employee of a body which is an authorised person in

relation to the activity, and E is also a manager or employee of that

body.’.

Members’ explanatory statement

This amendment replaces paragraphs 4(3)(d) and (e), which identify connected persons in specific

kinds of bodies, with a more general provision which identifies connected persons in any body

which is an authorised person. It will, for example, cover recognised bodies which are partner­

ships.

Mr Jonathan Djanogly

Mr Henry Bellingham

Mr Tobias Ellwood

Simon Hughes

John Hemming

255

Schedule  4,  page  142,  line  14,  leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—

‘(3)	Alterations are exempt unless the Board has directed that they are not to be treated

as exempt for the purposes of this paragraph.’.

Members’ explanatory statement

This amendment is designed to reverse the presumption that the advance approval of the Legal

Services Board should be required to changes to approved regulators’ regulatory arrangements.

Public Bill Committee: 19th June 2007

318

Legal Services Bill-[Lords], continued

Bridget Prentice

110

Clause  23,  page  12,  line  1,  leave out ‘a’ and insert ‘an independent’.

Members’ explanatory statement

This amendment is part of a set of amendments that change the Bill’s references to trade unions to

independent trade unions, as defined in amendment 126. This amendment provides that independ­

ent trade unions will have the transitional protection set out in Clause 23.

Mr Henry Bellingham

Mr Jonathan Djanogly

Mr Tobias Ellwood

244

Clause  28,  page  14,  line  9,  leave out ‘, so far as is reasonably practicable,’.

Mr Henry Bellingham

Mr Jonathan Djanogly

Mr Tobias Ellwood

245

Clause  29,  page  14,  line  26,  leave out ‘prejudiced’ and insert ‘improperly

constrained or influenced’.

John Mann

278

Clause  29,  page  14,  line  30,  at end add—

‘(3)	When acting under subsections (1) and (2) of this section the Board must satisfy

itself that approved regulators have established organisational structures and

procedural practices which distinguish sufficiently clearly between their

regulatory and representative functions.’.

Members’ explanatory statement

This amendment would enable the Legal Services Board to ensure that the approved regulators

have established an adequate distinction between their regulatory and representative functions.

Mr Kevan Jones

263

Clause  30,  page  15,  line  8,  at end insert—

‘( )	that the majority of the ordinary members of a committee that an

approved regulator authorises to exercise its regulatory functions are lay

persons.’.

Public Bill Committee: 19th June 2007

319

Legal Services Bill-[Lords], continued

Mr Henry Bellingham

Mr Jonathan Djanogly

Mr Tobias Ellwood

Simon Hughes

John Hemming

246

Clause  30,  page  15,  line  16,  at end insert—

‘(3A)

When making rules under subsections (1) to (3), the Board must satisfy itself that

approved regulators have established organisational structures and procedural

practices which distinguish sufficiently clearly between their regulatory and

representative functions.’.

John Mann

279

Clause  31,  page  15,  line  22,  after (a) insert—

‘(za)

investigate the performance by an approved regulator of any of its

regulatory functions.’.

Members’ explanatory statement

This amendment provides the Board with the power to investigate performance of the approved

regulator. Investigating concerns first allows, if necessary, for sensible and reasonable target set­

ting.

Bridget Prentice

1

Clause  31,  page  15,  line  30,  leave out from ‘on’ to ‘and’ in line 31 and insert ‘one

or more of the regulatory objectives,’.

Members’ explanatory statement

This amendment reverses one made in the House of Lords which changed one of the conditions for

Board action so as to refer to the likelihood of an adverse impact on the regulatory objectives taken

as a whole, rather than on one or more of those objectives.

Bridget Prentice

2

Clause  32,  page  16,  line  14,  leave out from ‘have,’ to end of line 15 and insert ‘an

adverse impact on one or more of the regulatory objectives,’.

Members’ explanatory statement

This amendment reverses one made in the House of Lords which changed a condition for Board

action so as to refer to the likelihood of a significant adverse impact on the regulatory objectives

taken as a whole, rather than an adverse effect on one or more of those objectives.

Public Bill Committee: 19th June 2007

320

Legal Services Bill-[Lords], continued

Bridget Prentice

3

Clause  35,  page  17,  line  27,  leave out from ‘have,’ to ‘and’ in line 28 and insert ‘an

adverse impact on one or more of the regulatory objectives,’.

Members’ explanatory statement

This amendment reverses one made in the House of Lords which changed a condition for Board

action so as to refer to the likelihood of a significant adverse impact on the regulatory objectives

taken as a whole, rather than an adverse effect on one or more of those objectives.

Mr Henry Bellingham

Mr Jonathan Djanogly

Mr Tobias Ellwood

247

Clause  36,  page  18,  line  15,  at end add—

‘(4A)

As soon as practicable after deciding to publish a statement, the Board must give

notice to the approved regulator stating that it has reached that decision and

setting out the terms in which the statement is to be published; and the Board must

not publish the statement until after the expiry of 7 days beginning with the day

on which notice is given under this subsection.’.

Simon Hughes

John Hemming

Mr Henry Bellingham

Mr Jonathan Djanogly

Mr Tobias Ellwood

225

Clause  37,  page  18,  line  30,  at end insert—

‘( )	The Board may not determine that it is appropriate to impose a penalty unless it

is satisfied that the matter cannot be adequately addressed by the Board

exercising the powers available to it under sections 31 to 36.’.

Members’ explanatory statement

To ensure that the Legal Services Board does not impose financial penalties where lesser sanctions

would suffice.

Mr Henry Bellingham

Mr Jonathan Djanogly

Mr Tobias Ellwood

248

Clause  39,  page  20,  line  3,  at end insert—

‘(da)

that the imposition of the penalty on any ground that would give rise to a

claim for judicial review.’.

Public Bill Committee: 19th June 2007

321

Legal Services Bill-[Lords], continued

Mr Henry Bellingham

Mr Jonathan Djanogly

Mr Tobias Ellwood

249

Clause  39,  page  20,  line  27,  leave out subsection (7).

Bridget Prentice

4

Clause  41,  page  21,  line  9,  leave out from ‘have,’ to ‘and’ in line 10 and insert ‘an

adverse impact on one or more of the regulatory objectives,’.

Members’ explanatory statement

This amendment reverses one made in the House of Lords which changed a condition for Board

action so as to refer to the likelihood of a significant adverse impact on the regulatory objectives

taken as a whole, rather than an adverse effect on one or more of those objectives.

John Mann

280

Clause  42,  page  22,  line  25,  at end add—

‘(11)

The Board may, in situations which it considers to constitute an emergency and

in which it is satisfied that delay in securing a warrant under subsection (3) would

be likely to prejudice the performance of its duties, exercise those powers in

respect of which a warrant would otherwise be necessary until such time as an

application under subsection (3) can be heard.’.

Members’ explanatory statement

This amendment would enable the Board to exercise its power of entry and search of a regulator’s

premises in respect of an intervention direction, prior to a successful application to a judge or Jus­

tice of the Peace for a warrant, in an emergency situation.

Bridget Prentice

5

Clause  45,  page  23,  line  29,  leave out from ‘have,’ to ‘and’ in line 30 and insert ‘an

adverse impact on one or more of the regulatory objectives,’.

Members’ explanatory statement

This amendment reverses one made in the House of Lords which changed a condition for Board

action so as to refer to the likelihood of a significant adverse impact on the regulatory objectives

taken as a whole, rather than an adverse effect on one or more of those objectives.

---

Revised 19 June 2007