Legal Services Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 108DA: 108DA: Clause 81 , page 47, line 36, at end insert— ““( ) section (Low risk body exemptions) (which exempts low risk bodies defined by section 106(2)(b) from certain provisions), and”” The noble Lord said: In speaking to the amendment, I shall touch also on Amendments Nos. 108FA, 108FB, 108FC, 108FD and 108FE in the group. They are probing amendments designed to ask the Government two questions. The first is completely innocent: why should trade unions have the exemption from certain requirements under Schedule 11,given to them by Clause 103? That is a request for information. Secondly, if trade unions have exemptions of that sort, why should those exemptions not be granted also to other low-risk bodies? Amendment No. 108FA would allow low-risk alternative business structures the same exemptions as those that are sought to be given to trade unions? We recognise the overall need for the safeguards put forward in this part of the Bill, but in these special circumstances, if the Government are already making exemptions, they might appropriately make another exemption here. Those bodies could utilise existing positions, as they would already have the equivalent of a head of legal practice and ahead of finance and administration. Here the Bill is promoting unnecessary measures with regard to low-risk bodies. Finally, Amendments Nos. 108FB, 108FC, 108FD and 108FE seek, shortly, to raise the number of non-lawyers that could allow an alternative business structure to qualify as low risk. The amendments reflect the belief that in assessing risk, it is not the number of lawyers that should be taken into account, but rather the professional and ethical standards of the individuals involved in ownership and management of the ABS. For example, professional accountants do not contribute any greater risk to the structure. I beg to move.