Proceeding contribution from Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 21 February 2007. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Legal Services Bill [HL].
Legal Services Bill [HL]
moved Amendment No. 137A: 137A: Clause 149 , page 78, line 27, after ““persons”” insert ““(other than approved regulators) who exercise regulatory functions”” The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 139G, 151A, 151B, 151D, 151E, 152, 153 and 155A. Amendments Nos. 152 and 153 have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. We concur completely with those amendments. The noble Lord simply got there faster than I was able to, so with his permission I shall speak to his amendments with the government amendments. The principle behind this group of amendments is to implement recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its report on the Bill. The committee specifically recommended that some provisions should be subject to greater parliamentary scrutiny either by making them by statutory instrument or by laying orders under the affirmative procedure where currently they are dealt with under the negative procedure. In addition, the amendments limit the scope of two of the order-making powers, as suggested by the committee. Amendments Nos. 137A, 139G, 151A, 151B, 151D, 151E and 155A give effect to recommendations made in the report, and, as I have indicated, I agree with Amendments Nos. 152 and 153 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Amendments Nos. 137A and 139G give effect to the committee’s recommendation that the powers in Clauses 149(3)(g) and 161(3)(g), which are analogous to the powers in Section 86 of the Pensions Act 2004, should either be amended so as to be subject to the same restrictions as those powers or be made subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The committee’s preference was for the former action and that is the approach taken by the amendments. Clause 149(3)(g) confers a power by order to prescribe additional persons to whom restricted information may be disclosed by the OLC, an ombudsman or a member of staff exercising duly delegated functions and the purpose for which it may be disclosed. Clause 161(3)(g) makes mirroring provision for disclosure by the LSB or a person exercising delegated functions. The amendments in each case restrict the power so that only persons having regulatory functions may be prescribed. Amendments Nos. 151A and 151B give effect to the committee’s recommendation that the statutory instruments under Section 83(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, which is inserted by Clause 176, and under Section 275(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, inserted by Clause 177, should be made by the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. The order-making powers under these sections give the Lord Chancellor powers to require registers of trade mark attorneys and patent attorneys to be kept by persons specified in the order and are currently subject to negative procedure. We accept the committee’s recommendation, as amending the person who keeps the registers of trade mark attorneys and patent attorneys is a significant power to exercise and one where a high level of parliamentary scrutiny is appropriate. As such, Amendments Nos. 151A and 151B seek to change the negative procedure presently set out to the affirmative procedure. We agree with the Delegated Powers Committee that this is the appropriate procedure for the exercise of such powers. Amendments Nos. 151D, 151E and 155A give effect to the committee’s recommendation that rules made by the board under Clauses 36(3), 93(3) and 166 should be made by statutory instrument subject to the negative procedure. The clauses that I have identified contain important rule-making powers, relating to the maximum levels of financial penalties—in respect of approved regulators and the regulation of licensed bodies—and the levy rules. Of course, these rules have a potential financial impact on approved regulators, so I accept the committee’s view that it is important that they are subject to an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. It is important that it should be the board, as the oversight regulator, that takes responsibility for preparing these rules. We have therefore provided that it will be the board itself that makes the order, in accordance with the Statutory Instruments Act 1946. However, it is still appropriate that the approval of the Secretary of State of the sponsoring department should be given to the rules before they are scrutinised by Parliament and made by order. We believe that, together, these amendments achieve the additional safeguards that the Delegated Powers Committee thought necessary in respect of financial rules. As I said earlier, I am happy to agree that the Bill should be amended as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in his Amendments Nos. 152 and 153. We agree that greater parliamentary scrutiny of the use of this power is needed than the Bill originally provided for. I trust that the Committee will agree to these amendments being made, and I beg to move.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 689 c1160-2
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Complaints Disclosure of information Consumers Legal profession Misconduct Patents Ombudsman Regulation Trade marks Legal Services Board Office for Legal Complaints
- Legislation
- Legal Services Bill (HL) 2006-07
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 11:09:23 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_378960
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_378960
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_378960