Legal Services Bill [HL]

I support my noble friend Lord Kingsland in moving the amendment and I declare an interest as a fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. Amendment No. 108FA would give what the Bill calls ““low risk”” alternative business structures merely the same exemptions as those that are already offered by the Bill to trade unions. Like my noble friend, I cannot see the justification for a more heavy-handed approach with regard to low-risk bodies which would consist of a considerable majority of regulated professionals who would already hold positions of head of legal practice or head of finance. The crucial consideration must surely be that of the risk to the consumer. To my mind, the most important amendments in the group are Amendments Nos. 108FB to 108FE, which would extend the definition of low-risk alternative business structures to allow them to include more non-lawyers. Again, I would ask that the decision be taken on the level of risk to the consumer. Risk does not come from the number of non-lawyers, but derives from the number of non-professionals. The real concern over alternative business structures is a potential lack of effective regulation and professional standards. The amendments would not reduce the number of highly qualified professionals needed to make a low-risk body and would not lower the number of strictly regulated individuals necessary. Members of the Committee will appreciate that there is a significant difference between, on the one hand, highly qualified professionals, such as chartered accountants or chartered surveyors, collaborating, and, on the other, the ““supermarket law”” concept that is liberally raised in discussion of this issue. Furthermore, these professionals are not undertaking to provide legal services themselves. I sympathise with concerns voiced at earlier stages by noble Lords on all sides of the House in those respects. Finally, why should alternative business structures involving other regulated, properly trained professionals be made to wait significantly longer under the new regime than legal disciplinary practices involving solicitors and barristers?