Legal Services Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 108A: 108A: After Clause 71 , insert the following new Clause— ““Patent and Trade Mark Agents A body— (a) existing at the date this Act comes into force and entitled to use the description ““Registered Trade Mark Agents”” or ““Registered Patent Agents””; and (b) which through the operation of section 71(1)(b) of this Act would otherwise be a licensable body, shall not be a licensable body unless it ceases to be entitled to use the said descriptions.”” The noble Lord said: This is another amendment which comes from the patent and trade mark agents. I was delighted to hear from the noble Baroness that she has met representatives of the trade mark and the patent bodies, as, indeed, she undertook to do on the previous Committee day. I am extremely grateful to her for taking that trouble. This amendment relates to the ownership qualification for a licensable body, as set out inClause 71(1)(b). It arises specifically out of the unusual position in which the patent and trade mark agents find themselves in comparison with other approved regulators. Patent and trade mark attorneys have never been restricted as to their ownership. As I understand it, a number of firms—at least one major firm and several smaller ones—have external owners, and have done so for a long time. I should emphasise that this situation is perfectly legal. As far as I can discern, there has never been any suggestion of a risk to a consumer, nor indeed any risk of conflict of interest. To us it seems inequitable to regulate a business practice that has so far been perfectly legal and where no risks have been identified. If the Bill is passed as it stands, this would cause considerable cost and, indeed, disruption both to existing firms and to the regulatory authorities themselves, who would be compelled to become a licensing body for their members. I beg to move.