Clause 72
Legal Services Bill [Lords]
8:45 pm
Simon Hughes (Party President, Cross-Portfolio and Non-Portfolio Responsibilities; North Southwark and Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)
There seems to be a move in the right direction, but I have two general questions and one specific one.
First, what prompted the tabling of the amendments at this stage? Was it debates in the Lords, particular representations, or an awareness that there was a technical defect in the drafting in respect of interest? I can see that an attempt is being made to be more precise.
Secondly, what was the justification or reason for the decision that a 10 per cent. rule should effectively determine whether there is a relevant interest? Is that based on what is accepted as common precedent, either in European Union countries or elsewhere?
Thirdly, amendment No. 191, which stands alone even though it is in the group, appears to broaden the remit of the Bill by expanding the definition of the phrase “relevant legal services” so that where it reads
“where authorised persons, other than solicitors or registered European lawyers, are managers of,”
the words “or employees of” are added. What is the logic and the reasoning behind that expansion? It is welcome—I am not being critical, as it seems to me to be a logical move in right direction, but I wondered what triggered the change at this stage. There is clearly a difference between considering a firm because the managers do certain jobs and considering all the employees down to whatever level.