 House of Commons |
Session 2006 - 07 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Legal Services |
Legal Services Bill [Lords] |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Hannah
Weston, John Benger, Committee
Clerks
†
attended the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 19 June 2007(Afternoon)[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]Legal Services Bill [Lords]Schedule 4Approved
Regulators
Amendment
moved
[this day]:
No. 255, in 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.’.—[ Robert
Neill.]
4
pm
The
Chairman:
I first come to one or two little domestic
matters. I am delighted to be back from the Falkland Islands, where I
was in the company of other Members of Parliament, not least the
Minister of State responsible for the armed services, as well as Lord
Parkinson and his wife, representing Baroness
Thatcher, my wife and the shadow Defence Secretary. We attended
ceremonies, with hundreds of veterans and the families of those who
lost their lives in that conflict 25 years ago. It was a wonderful
experience, and the ceremonies in various parts of the islands where
memorials were dedicated by the Earl of Wessex, Prince Edward, were
very moving occasions. They were much appreciated by all present:
service personnel, islanders and politicians who were down there as
guests of the Falkland Islands Government and the Ministry of
Defence.
I am back
here, however, to ensure that we make a little more progress than I
understand we have been making, and I am pretty tough. However, it is
warm and humid, and although I am not normally known for taking off my
jacket—I may be forced to do so later on—I am happy that
those who wish to may do so.
I would also like to ask
colleagues—at some stage, perhaps towards the end of this
Committee stage—to indicate to myself and to Mr. Cook
their satisfaction with the new process of the explanatory statements.
Are they helping to ensure more informed debate? It would be helpful to
the Chairmen’s Panel—to myself and to my
co-Chairmen—to hear from hon. Members to hear how efficiently
and effectively they believe that the new process is. It puts our
Clerks Department under quite a lot of extra pressure, but if the new
system helps the Committee and the House, I believe that we should
stick with it. I hope that it is
helpful.
When the
Committee rose, I understand that the hon. Member for Bromley and
Chislehurst was on his feet moving the amendment. I ask him to resume
his
speech.
Robert
Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): I welcome you, Sir
Nicholas, back from the Falklands. I am sure that the Argentine
Government will not regard
your return from the Falklands as their having dropped their guard, or
reduced our level of deterrence in any way. I welcome you to the
Committee. We are delighted to be serving under your
chairmanship.
You will
be glad to know, Sir Nicholas, that I have effectively concluded the
essence of my speech. I hope that the proposals, which are supported by
the Law Society, will commend themselves to the Government, because we
think that there is a constructive way forward here to improve the
Bill. Without more ado, I move amendment No.
255.
John
Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): It is a
pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir
Nicholas, and I welcome you back from the Falklands.
There is an interesting point
about schedule 4, and particularly this amendment. The amendment would
make things far more efficient. Rather than trapping everything in a
bureaucratic muddle, it would allow the Legal Services Board to
identify those things with which the board must get involved. To that
extent, if we are looking for an efficient and effective way of
regulating the legal profession, this would be a good starting point.
It would be worth making the same point on schedule 4 itself given that
it is interesting how the Lord Chief Justice is important here, but not
important in terms of appointing the Legal Services Board. However, the
amendment would provide a more effective approach; it is very
good.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice
(Bridget P
r
entice):
May I also express my
delight that you, Sir Nicholas, you have returned well and full of
enthusiasm from the Falklands? We all know how firm and fair you will
be throughout our proceedings and look forward to continuing our
debates under your wise
chairmanship.
I
understand that there is anxiety over the need to ensure that the board
operates in a proportionate fashion. I agree that it should operate
that way and that it would go against that principle if we were to
create a system that encourages micromanagement by the board. Equally,
we do not want to add unnecessary delay or inefficiency to the
day-to-day operation of the regulatory regime, but I do not consider
that the current arrangements under schedule 4 will have either of
those effects.
I come
to what has been slightly lost in the amendment. First, the hon. Member
for Bromley and Chislehurst touched on the fact that, under schedule 4,
the board will have wide discretion to exempt certain classes of rules.
It is appropriate that it should be possible to exempt minor
alterations to regulatory arrangements or those alterations that are
not particularly relevant. Secondly, the proposed change would not
necessarily make the board’s relationship with the approved
regulators more efficient, despite what the hon. Member for Birmingham,
Yardley said. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it might have
the opposite
effect.
Even if the
presumption were that the regulatory arrangements are
to be exempt unless otherwise directed, the board would not be doing
its job properly if it did not know what it was exempting. It could not
be expected to relinquish oversight unless it was confident
that
in each case the regulatory arrangements in question
required no input from the board in order to achieve the regulatory
objectives. The outcome would be increased regulatory burdens on both
the board and the approved regulators. The board would have to monitor
regularly and assiduously all regulatory arrangements, and approach
constantly each of the eight—so far—approved regulators
to assess the ever-changing scope of the exemption and evaluate whether
it needed to create further
exceptions.
The
frequent and unpredictable demands created by that
system would increase rather than reduce the burden on approved
regulators. A system whereby approved regulators are free to submit
proposals for exemptions seems to be more straightforward rather than
less. Apart from my reservations about the procedure and inefficiency,
I believe that the change would compromise our primary objective of
accountability and consumer protection through the regulatory
framework.
If the board
is to be strong and effective as an oversight regulator, acting in the
interests of the consumer, it is vital that it is aware of the
regulatory environment. That does not mean that it has to take an
interventionist approach. Indeed, I hope that it does not. However, to
avoid doing so, it needs to have full information in order to make its
judgment.
The hon.
Member for Bromley and Chislehurst referred to the present position and
what the Bill will, in effect, achieve in terms of streamlining the
system. At the moment, under the procedure set out in part II of
schedule 4 to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, any alteration to
the rules relating to the conduct of persons exercising a right of
audience or a right to conduct litigation, any alteration to the
qualification regulations of the authorised body or the alteration of
any rights granted by those bodies must be approved by the Secretary of
State. Before doing so, the Secretaryof State must follow the
procedures set out under schedule 4 to the Act, which usually involves
obtaining the advice of the legal services consultative panel and the
Office of Fair Trading, each of which gives its advice
separately.
The
Secretary of State then sends the advice to the authorised body for its
observation and consults the designated judges for their views before
making a final decision. There is no limit to how long the process can
take and, as the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst rightly
pointed out, at times it has taken many months, if not years. It can
take even longer if the rule is complicated or if the authorised body
is unwilling to amend the rule to take into account the worries of the
legal services consultative panel. That was the position with the Law
Society’s conflict and confidentiality
rules.
Under the Bill,
the board will have sole responsibility for approving the rules. Under
the procedures setout in part 3 of schedule 4, alterations to
regulatory arrangements will be approved either automatically, if the
board considers them to be exempt, or after an initial determination.
They will also be subject to the warning notice procedures in
paragraphs 21 to 35, under which the board might consider advice from
appropriate persons and representations made bythe approved
regulator making the application. The process is subject to a time
limit to ensure that applications do not become drawn out. For example,
the approved regulator must make representations within 28 days, and
alterations will be approved
automatically after 12 months unless the board refuses the application
or applies to extend the consideration period.
The three-stage process will
ensure that the regulatory arrangements for different levels of risk
are given appropriate consideration. It will
certainly streamline the current situation. On that basis, although I
understand the concerns about complication and length of time, I think
that the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst might find that the
situation outlined in schedule 4 makes for a better system. I hope that
he will therefore withdraw his amendment.
Robert
Neill:
I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I
take on board a number of her points, and I am grateful for movement
and a degree of reassurance on time limits. We are still concerned, as
are a number of professional bodies. In practice, regulatory bodies of
this kind have a tendency towards mission creep. It is important that
we are vigilant to ensure that that does not become the case, because
it is then, however good the intentions, that the administrative burden
and expense can grow. We hope that the Government will continue to keep
an open mind in the light of experience. We shall see how the rest of
these matters develop, but for the time being, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Schedule
4 agreed
to.
Clauses 21
and 22
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule 5
agreed
to.
Clause 23
Transitional
protection for non-commercial
bodies
Amendment
made: No. 110, in clause 23, page 12, line 1, leave out
‘a’ and insert ‘an
independent’.—[Bridget
Prentice.]
Question
proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman:
Do you wish to debate it? If anybody rises, I
shall not proceed with the Division, but I must say that it is a little
late for the Opposition to wish to debate it. I did say that I would
move through the amendments fairly speedily. If any Opposition Member
wishes to speak in a stand part debate, they must rise immediately to
catch my
eye.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Clause 23,
as amended,
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses 24
to 26 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
6 agreed
to.
Clause 27
ordered to stand part of the
Bill
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 20 June 2007 |