---

Legal Services Bill [HL]

I am very grateful, and I will of course check that. I will also check the point made by the noble and learned Baroness about reserved family proceedings. I will not try to pretend that I can answer it, as that would be extremely foolish on my part. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. It is a joy to see him in his place. I am glad that he has caught up with our discussions on Latin, which have played some role in our discussions. As I said, I have O-level Latin, although that was a very long time ago. Perhaps that is why I am not a lawyer or a judge. However, I am also glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, thought that the common touch was important and got the judges to talk to those of us for whom Latin will never be a language on which we will spend much time. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, will not be surprised to hear that we will deal with all the proposals made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. We will do whatever it has asked us to do, as ever. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for tabling his amendment, as I wanted to take the opportunity to spell out the provision in greater detail. This will be in Hansard so that the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Goodhart, and the Members of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee will have the chance to see it and, if appropriate, to comment. On the specific drafting of the amendment, paragraph 8(1)(b) allows for the person to cease to be exempt. This is required, as the noble Lord, will know, to enable us to bring people within the regulatory framework in appropriate cases. It might, for example, be necessary to regulate the conduct of someone whose conduct of reserved legal activities is giving rise to concern. This is an important power for ensuring that public confidence in those providing legal services is maintained, and the board can respond when problems arise. The power in paragraph 8(1)(c) may be required to enable the Secretary of State to amend any existing provision made in Schedule 3 in respect of exempt persons. That power is necessary to effect the changes to Schedule 3 where there is a need to modify the provision. For example, the reference to the European Communities (Services of Lawyers) Order 1978 in paragraph 7 may need to be updated when a new order is made. Paragraph 8(1)(c) would allow the Secretary of State in such circumstances to revisit the drafting of the exemption in paragraph 7 to reflect the relevant changes and ensure that the provision is fit for purpose. It is an entirely technical provision, which, I hope noble Lords will accept, is necessarily broad to ensure that any appropriate changes can be made in the future. Given the scope of the power, we have ensured that it is exercisable only in accordance with the affirmative resolution procedure, so that there is opportunity for Parliament to consider any provision made. Given how these technical changes would operate, the affirmative procedure would be highly appropriate—I know the limitations in amending which noble Lords worry about. Let me further clarify the purposes of the power at Schedule 3(8), in line with the response of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has reported. As the committee mentioned in its report, the power to exempt is not without precedent. Section 6(2) of the Compensation Act 2006, for which I was responsible, provides for an order of the Secretary of State to exempt certain persons, or classes of persons, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The power in paragraph 8(1)(a) of Schedule 3 serves a similar purpose to that in Section 6 of the Compensation Act, in that it provides a mechanism by which specific persons can be exempted, subject to parliamentary oversight. As we highlighted in the government response, under the existing regime there are already a number of exempt persons who are able to carry out reserved legal activities by virtue of their office without committing an offence. For instance, officials working for local authorities have limited rights of audiencein specified circumstances; for example, underSection 60 of the County Courts Act 1984. Under the Bill, such persons are exempt under paragraph 1(6) of Schedule 3. Those people represent a low regulatory risk and it would not be appropriate to require them to be regulated by an approved regulator. It is also reasonable to assume that there will be similar persons, or classes of persons, who might need to be exempted from regulation in the future where a new reserved service has been brought under the regime. I hope that that clarifies further the purpose of exemption clauses, that the noble Lord will be able to reflect on the matter, and that members of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee will also read this.