I have two points on which I seek further advice from the Minister. This schedule sets out the existing regulators in the table, but paragraph 3 provides for a body that wishes to authorise persons to apply to the board. It might be helpful if the Minister could let us know—if not now, at a later stage—what sort of bodies had already expressed an interest in authorising persons to carry on one or more reserved legal activities. When the Joint Select Committee took evidence, a number of bodies indicated that they might be interested; as we examine the way that Schedule 4 will develop, it would be helpful to the Committee to know what sort of bodies we are talking about, so that we could review the arrangements that will be made.
The Minister may not yet have noticed that there is mention of the Lord Chief Justice in paragraph 9, ““Advice of the Lord Chief Justice””. I do not know whether she has yet been able to communicate our view of the remark made by her noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that consumers rightly see the Lord Chief Justice as another lawyer in the process, because we feel that he is much more than that. That is demonstrated by the mention of the Lord Chief Justice being given the power virtually to say ““no””, for various reasons.
That gives me the opportunity of raising again the issue of the Lord Chief Justice, because I have been greatly assisted by Michael Clancy, the director of law reform at the Law Society of Scotland. Until he gave me a copy of it, I had not focused on the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill, which was passed by the Scottish Parliament on 14 December 2006 and, I understand, has not yet received Royal Assent, but, no doubt, soon will. During the passage of that Bill, the Scottish Parliament decided to amend it to give the Lord President of the Court of Session, Scotland’s senior judge, roles to fulfil in the appointment and removal of the commissioners—the equivalent of the boards and the office that we are debating under this Bill. The Lord President was also given a role as a consultee in making rules to govern the commission.
The Lord Chief Justice is mentioned here as playing a significant role, and I hope—it is a hope to which I am sure the Minister will not yet respond, as she said that will think again about the whole question of the independence of the legal profession—that that will give us an opportunity to press again the fact that the Scottish Parliament has taken a step in the right direction. I just hope that the Government will take a similar step with this Bill.
In Schedule 4, we are concerned primarily with approved regulators, and it would be helpful to know how many are lining up. Perhaps only tentative discussions have taken place so far, but I should like to know whether many regulators have come forward and how many applications are likely to be made once the Bill receives Royal Assent.
Legal Services Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Hunt of Wirral
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 22 January 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Legal Services Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
688 c972-3 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:16:42 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_371735
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_371735
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_371735