Clause 51
Legal Services Bill [Lords]
6:30 pm
Henry Bellingham (Shadow Minister, Constitutional Affairs; North West Norfolk, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 251, in clause 51, page 28, line 4, at end insert—
‘(2A) Practising fee income shall be kept separate from the other assets of a regulator.’.
This is a very simple amendment. As lawyers would say, “Res ipsa loquitur”; it speaks for itself. There are arguments for different types of income to be kept separate. The Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys provides an illustration of the problems that could arise in any recovery of the levy. It is a private body, limited by guarantee, which performs regulatory and non-regulatory functions. If a levy can be recovered against all their assets, it would mean that the assets of the business, including income and capital assets derived from non-regulatory and represented sources could be vulnerable, even though as a regulator, the institute and its members are precluded from realising any financial benefit from any other regulatory activity.
The result could be private persons or businesses who are expected to guarantee a levy to the state with no possibility of a corresponding benefit. Therefore, I would argue strongly that it is only reasonable thatthe recovery of a levy should be limited to funds ring-fenced as provided in the amendment.