Draft Legal Services Act 2007 (The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and the Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys) (Modification of Functions) Order 2014
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
† Blackman, Bob (Harrow East) (Con)
† Burns, Mr Simon (Chelmsford) (Con)
Champion, Sarah (Rotherham) (Lab)
† Field, Mark (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
† Gilbert, Stephen (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
Jowell, Dame Tessa (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
† Kane, Mike (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
† Lazarowicz, Mark (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
† Metcalfe, Stephen (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
† Reid, Mr Alan (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
† Scott, Mr Lee (Ilford North) (Con)
Shannon, Jim (Strangford) (DUP)
† Slaughter, Mr Andy (Hammersmith) (Lab)
† Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry (Bradford South) (Lab)
Turner, Karl (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
† Vara, Mr Shailesh (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice)
† Wallace, Mr Ben (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)
† Watkinson, Dame Angela (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Sarah Thatcher, Adam Mellows-Facer, Committee Clerks
† attended the Committee
Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee
Tuesday 25 November 2014
[Mr Adrian Sanders in the Chair]
Draft Legal Services Act 2007 (the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and the Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys) (Modification of Functions) Order 2014
8.55 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Legal Services Act 2007 (the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and the Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys) (Modification of Functions) Order 2014.
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sanders. The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and the Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys are approved regulators under the Legal Services Act 2007 for the reserved legal activities of the exercise of a right of audience, the conduct of litigation, the administration of oaths and reserved instrument activities.
The order is made under section 69 of the 2007 Act, which allows the Lord Chancellor to make an order modifying the functions of an approved regulator or other body, which also includes a licensing authority. Essentially it does two things. First, it harmonises the approach that CIPA and ITMA take in regulating all registrants to undertake patent and trade mark work, whether they are registered bodies—in other words non-alternative business structures—or licensed bodies, which are alternative business structures. It does that by making various provisions to ensure that the regulatory framework for CIPA and ITMA is the same whether they are acting as an approved regulator or as a licensing authority.
Secondly, the order enables CIPA and ITMA to make rules or regulations providing for appeals to the first-tier tribunal or High Court against decisions that they make as an approved regulator and, in certain circumstances, as a licensing authority.
CIPA and ITMA are not yet licensing authorities, but they applied in May 2013 to the Legal Services Board to be so designated in relation to the same four reserved activities for which they are already approved regulators. Following a recommendation from the LSB to the Lord Chancellor, I decided in principle on 5 March to make such a designation order. I have now signed that order and it was laid in Parliament on 20 November.
The order puts in place a number of measures to harmonise the approach that CIPA and ITMA take in regulating all registrants to undertake patent and trade mark work, whether they are acting as approved regulators or eventually as licensing authorities. That will help to ensure consistency of regulation and will pave the way for the continued widening of the legal services market.
8.58 am
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab): It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Sanders.
It distresses me that I can find little, if anything, to quarrel with in relation to the instrument. Essentially it does, as the Minister said, two things. One is to put the two professional bodies, CIPA and ITMA, on the same footing with regard to their regulatory role; and secondly it gives both bodies the same powers and functions in relation to both ABS and non-ABS bodies. There are a variety of provisions dealing with appeals to the first-tier tribunal, investigation costs, disciplinary arrangements and several other matters.
That is all eminently sensible, and all in line with other orders that we have considered recently under the 2007 Act to give additional functions and powers to the professional bodies where appropriate—last week we dealt with the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales—and to make sure there is continuity and standardisation of function.
We seem to be making heavy weather of things by dealing with one order a week; I do not know whether the Minister is on piecework. Perhaps we could proceed faster. Normally, I have a little checklist which I use for these instruments: whether they are evidence based; whether they are brought forward for propaganda reasons rather than policy; whether there are untold, unintended consequences, and whether there has been any consultation. On these issues, I cannot find any points to make. On consultation, the Minister has excelled himself. I looked at the 71 pages of the consultation document and the 36 pages of the consultation response and did find—as on previous occasions—that there was not a single response whatever. The consultation document points out that the consultation does not seek views on the policy intentions; rather it seeks views on whether the drafting of the order delivers the policy intentions. So there we have it. I am sure that, had it been a more racy consultation, we would have had a great deal more by way of response.
I have one point on the impact assessment which the Minister may wish to respond to. We are, again, endowed with a full impact assessment with relatively low costs and a variety of options considered. One cannot criticise the diligence with which the civil servants have assessed this. As an example, I considered page 16 of the impact assessment, which covers the number of interventions and the likelihood of those occurring and the potential cost per annum. This runs from zero interventions with zero cost, which is most likely, to five interventions, which is very unlikely. Figures such as these, more generally, seem rather “finger-in-the-air” calculations, for costs which range from a few hundred pounds to a few tens of thousands. In relation in particular to the additional costs of appeal and of regulation, can the Minister be candid and tell us whether these are best guesses or have an evidential base? There are not great sums of money involved in any individual order, but when one looks at them in the round and tots them up over the weeks, there are substantial costs running into hundreds of thousands of pounds, particularly for the new appeal process. The new appeal process is correct, but are the Government sure about the figures? Are they taking account of the cumulative as well as the individual costs of these changes?
9.2 am
Mr Vara: This is a moment to be treasured—the hon. Gentleman cannot find anything to quarrel with me about. I hope that is a trend which he might wish to pursue, although I fear that it probably will not be the case.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the consultation with reference to the wording. The Intellectual Property Regulation Board held a consultation in June 2012 to consult on the detailed policy, so that issue was dealt with in a previous consultation. On the figures that the hon. Gentleman refers to, the impact assessment uses figures based on experience. I believe that the number of bodies involved is relatively small in any event.
The order will help to ensure consistency of regulation and greater consumer protection, and will help CIPA and ITMA to operate more effectively and efficiently. I trust that the Committee agrees that this order will feed into the widening of the legal services market, thereby increasing competition. This in turn will help to drive standards up and costs down, ensuring that consumers get the best services at competitive prices.