---

Legal Services Bill [HL]

I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply, but I am disappointed that she is not able to accept the amendment tonight. I would ask her to glance at Clause 197 on page 108. We reach the word ““solicitor”” which is defined in the interpretation clause as, "““‘solicitor’ means solicitor of the Senior Courts””." But nowhere in this clause do we find a definition of ““barrister””. That is strange. Is it an accidental omission or a deliberate one? If it is deliberate, why has it been decided not to include a definition of ““barrister””? The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, referred to the degree of Barrister-at-Law, which can only be obtained from one of the four Inns as of ““incalculable value to the public””. This is the central point. The amendment is designed to protect the consumer by ensuring that anyone using the name of ““barrister”” must be someone who is a product of the Inns of Court system. The amendment does not seek to claim special privileges for the Inns of Court, but to underline that the Inns are centres of excellence which produce barristers and that any attempt to describe someone as a barrister who has not been to an Inn of Court and through this system would be to undermine the quality of the service the consumer is entitled to enjoy. We are not seeking some privileged position for the Inns of Court in this Bill. The Inns of Court and what they achieve underline the importance of the word ““barrister”” and I do not see why the Government have any difficulty in accepting that there should be a unique link between the description of ““barrister”” and the Inns of Court.