---

Legal Services Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 176A: 176A: Clause 53 , page 30, line 6, at end insert— ““(2A) The Board may agree to exercise functions under regulatory arrangements made for the purposes of subsection (1)(b). (2B) Any resolution of an external regulatory conflict in accordance with the regulatory arrangements of an approved regulator (whether by the Board or any other person)— (a) binds an external regulatory body only if, or to the extent that, the body agrees with the approved regulator to be so bound, and (b) is subject to any provision made by or by virtue of this Act or any other enactment. (2C) An approved regulator must consider any request made by an external regulatory body for the approved regulator to reconsider any provision made by its regulatory arrangements on the ground that the provision— (a) conflicts with a requirement of a regulatory provision made by the external regulatory body, or (b) unnecessarily duplicates any regulatory provision made by that body.? The noble Lord said: my Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 176B and 176C, which are substitutes for Amendment No. 176. During the debate of 23 January, the noble Baroness agreed to consider the principle behind the line of amendments preceding the ones now tabled. They centred on the obligations on approved regulators to co-operate with non-legal regulators over issues of regulatory conflict. In consultation with the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Government indicated that the wording of Amendments Nos. 176A to 176C might be acceptable. While promoting consumer interests everywhere else, the Bill will put at a disadvantage consumers, providers of services from alternative business structures and indeed legal practices employing individuals with other regulatory obligations by not giving them the same rights to raise issues of conflict. The Government’s justification for rejecting these amendments is apparently that the general duty is sufficient, but if it is sufficient for conflict between an approved regulator and an external regulator, why not for conflicts between two approved regulators? That distinction appears artificial. The Government, after a degree of prevarication have given the institute an explanation of their decision not to table an amendment to Clause 53. As I have just hinted, that is based on the assertion that the general duty forapproved regulators to avoid regulatory conflict is sufficient. The provision of legal services is already integrated with many other regulatory regimes. If the Bill is to have the right effect, providing for more flexible and innovative provision, such regimes will become even more integrated. I beg to move.