moved Amendment No. 436:
436: Clause 170, page 88, line 36, after ““(c)”” insert ““section 89 of and””
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 436A to 497, 499 and 500, 502 to 504, 506 to 517A and 519 to 563.
During the final day of Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, tabled a number of amendments which my noble friend Lady Ashton agreed to take away and consider properly before returning to the issue, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
Having now had that opportunity to consider those amendments further, including discussing in considerable detail with the Law Society, we now bring forward these amendments which we believe address the issues raised during Committee.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, noted during Committee, these amendments are both numerous and technical in nature, and I shall therefore resist addressing each one in detail. Their intention is to amend Schedule 16 of the Bill, in turn amending the Solicitors Act 1974, the Administration of JusticeAct 1985 and the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, which relate to solicitors, recognised bodies and foreign lawyers.
We agree there is a need to update those provisions further to ensure that they are consistent with practice among other legal professions—we seek to make the Solicitors Act 1974 more flexible in order to do so—to remove any anomalous provisions, to facilitate more competitive working practices between business and solicitors and to update legislation so that it reflects advances in current practice.
This is one of a number of large groups of government amendments which make changes to existing legislation under which the legal professional bodies, and principally the Law Society, regulate their members. The amendments are largely inspired by the Law Society, and are intended to enable the society to more effectively regulate the profession. We believe that they achieve what is sought.
In Committee my noble friend Lady Ashton confirmed to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that the Government intended to bring forward these amendments. However, I should draw to the attention of noble Lords that amendments in the next group relating to the Law Society’s powers to rebuke and reprimand, and enhanced regulatory powers in relation to sole practices as well as the power to require information have not, as yet, been tabled by the Government.
We want to make it plain that this is not because the Government do not support the principle, nor that there is anything between the Government and the Law Society in this regard. The reason for not bringing forward these amendments at this stage is simply because the issues are complex, and we need to do further work with the Law Society to ensure that the amendments we bring forward properly deliver the outcome both the Government and the Law Society want.
I know that noble Lords will understand the amount of work that has been involved in bringing forward such a large number of amendments, which for the most part relate to the existing regulatory regime. But I hope that they will agree the value of these amendments and will indulge me in seeking a little more time to ensure that we get the remaining few amendments right.
We will be able bring forward amendments to the Law Society’s power to require information at Third Reading, and I am confident that the Government will be in a position to bring forward amendments in the other two areas at a later stage in the Bill’s passage. However, I hope that noble Lords may take further reassurance from the fact that it would be possible to make these amendments under an order that could be made under the proposed amendment to Schedule 22—Amendment No. 648.
The amendment, which responds to one made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, provides a transitory power to modify the functions of bodies. Should it not prove possible to bring forward amendments during the passage of the Bill, I confirm that the Government would make these amendments a high priority for any Schedule 22 order.
Although this group deals with amendments to Schedule 16, there is a matter under Schedule 17, tabled under a later group, which I would also like to address. We have endeavoured to table an amendment giving the Council for Licensed Conveyancers a power to charge in specific circumstances for carrying out an investigation into allegations made against a licensed conveyancer. That is the only outstanding issue for the council, and one with which we entirely agree. However, there are still some unresolved issues surrounding exactly how that power should be drafted to give effect to such an amendment, but we recognise the desirability of giving the council that power.
As I said earlier in relation to the Law Society’s requested powers, we are trying to see whether it is possible to bring forward an amendment that is mutually agreeable at a later stage in the Bill. However, if that is not possible, such an amendment would again be given a high priority under the list of modifications sought under a Schedule 22 order. I beg to move.
Legal Services Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 8 May 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Legal Services Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
691 c1334-6 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:25:18 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_395108
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_395108
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_395108