Legal Services Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 46: 46: After Clause 29, insert the following new Clause— ““Separation of functions: proportionality (1) In exercising its functions under sections 28 and 29, the Board shall pay particular regard to what is proportionate. (2) Without prejudice to subsection (1), nothing in sections 28 or 29 shall exclude prima facie— (a) the exercise of or involvement in regulatory and representative functions by the same persons or bodies within an approved regulator; (b) the exercise of regulatory and representative functions from common premises.”” The noble Lord said: This amendment follows our earlier Amendment No. 33 in urging proportionate treatment of the approved regulators by the Legal Services Board, and it again relates to the separation of approved regulators’ functions into representative and regulatory. This is another amendment inspired by the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and the Institute of Trademark Attorneys. I make no apologies for that because noble Lords are aware that those two bodies, and the way they operate, raise considerations that are in many respects quite distinct from the considerations that affect an approved regulator such as the Law Society. These small, highly specialised, very technical approved regulators simply cannot be expected to separate their representative and regulatory roles completely, particularly in terms of staff and premises—here I refer to physical separation. They have neither the human nor the financial resources to do so. Unfortunately, there is no reasonable prospect that the burden of the costs of having to do so could be recovered from the regulated persons. We submit that the limited resources of these two associations and those of other smaller approved regulators should be taken into account. We have already indicated at earlier stages in the Bill that we totally accept the Government’s reasons for proposing a complete separation of functions, but in some cases that may not be possible, or at least, not possible at anything other than an exorbitant and disproportionate cost. In the absence of any manifest risk of conflict, we believe that Chinese walls should be permitted in agreed instances, so in this respect, we would like the Government to be flexible. I beg to move.