Proceeding contribution from Lord Patel of Bradford (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 17 November 2008. It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Legal Services Act 2007 (Functions of a Designated Regulator) Order 2008.
Legal Services Act 2007 (Functions of a Designated Regulator) Order 2008
I am not sure how to thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, for his warm welcome. I shall begin by looking at some of the issues. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for his comments about the Explanatory Memorandum. As someone new to this area, I found it helpful and commend his points about paragraph 7, which explains what we are doing and why we are doing it. It provides an important lesson for us all and should be contained in future briefing notes. This is a complicated but important issue. The order ensures that we do not restrict unnecessarily the organisational structures of bodies. Some bodies have already demonstrated that they are fit to provide legal services through the current recognised regime, and it would be improper to restrict them even further simply to allow them to be regarded as legally qualified. If such bodies wish to become legal services bodies under new Section 9 of the 1985 Act, they still have to satisfy the conditions set out in Section 9A. Strong safeguards therefore remain in place for non-lawyer management of firms. I have read transcripts in Hansard of what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said during the passage of the Act. It is clear that he is well experienced in these matters and I cannot begin to rehearse many of the arguments that he then put forward. Suffice it to say that the provisions apply also to small firms—for example, to allow partners in small firms to recognise secretaries and non-qualified people who do routine tasks. The legal disciplinary practice is supported by consumer groups and the Federation of Small Businesses. It does not represent an attempt to establish a full ABS; no external investment is allowed. I know that those explanations will not completely reassure and satisfy the noble Lord because of the many cases that he has put forward, but his arguments are well heeded and heard and are once again on record. I hope that noble Lords will in the mean time agree that the order is an appropriate solution to this matter. On Question, Motion agreed to.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 705 c74-6GC
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Complaints Barristers Legal profession Small businesses Regulation Rural areas Solicitors Alternative business structures
- Legislation
- Legal Services Act 2007 (Functions of a Designated Regulator) Order 2008
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 02:36:52 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_509664
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_509664
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_509664