I agree completely with what the noble and learned Lord said about the high standards that they would expect of themselves. They would expect others to view them as having the highest possible regard for those standards. The question that we keep coming back to in the Bill is how to ensure that we are proportionate and regulate where necessary. I contend that it is not appropriate to regard the work provided by government solicitors in precisely the same way as the work of those operating outside that service, for the reasons I have given—not least that they are not facing the public, they are not generally handling clients’ money and so on. We have sought in the Bill to ensure that we regulate where we think it appropriate. There is a long tradition of exempting solicitors in the way that I have described going back to the 18th century. There may be a perception in the Committee that these solicitors should be included but I have picked up no perception among the public that this is something they need to worry about. If there is evidence to prove otherwise, then—as I have indicated throughout this sitting—bring that evidence forward. I shall look at it and refer it to my colleagues. But there is no evidence.
The figure required is £850,000; I am sorry that I garbled it. I mentioned the sum partly to assure the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that although it is significant, it is not the reason why we are not taking the proposal forward. The reasons are those which I have outlined.
I do not really know how to answer the question put by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, on whether barristers employed in the public service by government are treated differently from solicitors. Perhaps we can talk about what precisely was meant by the question.
We are continuing the current position while recognising that the role of solicitors in the public service is different. I have already indicated why barristers are in a different position. Noble Lords can of course consider what they wish to do at the next stage, but we are absolutely clear that we have got this right.
Legal Services Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Ashton of Upholland
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 6 March 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Legal Services Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
690 c201-2 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:57:35 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_382150
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_382150
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_382150