Simon
Hughes: I was aware that the Lords Committee took that
view. This morning, I learned for the first time from my noble Friend
Lord Wallace of Saltaire that there are more formerly active trade
union Members in the House of Lords than in the House of Commons. I
leave Labour colleagues to reflect on the ability of the Labour
movement in the House of Commons to represent working women and men in
its traditional way. Clearly, new Labour has taken over the Commons
more quickly it has taken over the
Lords. I am not
satisfied with the result. The Minister is right: I have always been
particular in trying to ensure that we do not legislate when we do not
need to and that we do not create work that we do not need to do.
However, I still think that this is an appropriate matter for
compulsory debate and vote. I will seek the Committee’s leave to
withdraw the amendment, but I give notice that I intend to return to
it. I hope that I can persuade colleagues to support me on
Report. In the
interim, I ask the Minister to reflect on whether, having taken advice,
she might be willing to
respond positively to what I hope has been a constructive suggestion and
approach in Committee from the Liberal Democrats. I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
14 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
15Commencement
Simon
Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in clause 15, page
9, line 17, at end
insert— ‘(1A) The preceding
provisions of this Act, other than sections 1 and 2, shall cease to
have effect on 1st January 2012 or upon the entry into force of the
Legal Services Act 2007, whichever is the
earlier.'. This
is the last flourish from the Liberal Democrat Benches. The amendment
would add another subsection between subsections (1) and (2) in clause
15. It is consistent with what the Minister kindly attributed to me as
an objective—to ensure that we do not end up with more law than
we need, with people running about looking in “Halsbury’s
Laws” or at statutes, cross-referring and cross-relating
them. I want the Bill
to become subject to a sunset provision so that it disappears and is
incorporated into the draft Legal Services Bill when that becomes an
Act. Rather than having two pieces of legislation that regulate claims
made through a claims firm and through lawyers, anyone who is
interested can go to one piece of legislation. The same goes for
government. That is a justified position because the draft Legal
Services Bill is being considered by Parliament literally as we
speak. I hope that
the Minister will be positive about that. Parliament should not pass
legislation that will, or is presumed to, go on forever, when there are
other pieces of legislation in which it could reasonably be dovetailed.
All the provisions in part 2 will not only be in parallel with those
governed by the Legal Services Bill, but are likely to be governed by
the same regulator, as we are told by the Minister. That is important.
It would be a nonsense if we were to end up with one regulator
governing the things that are regulated by two different Acts of
Parliament that are passed within 12 months of each other.
I hope the Minister will be
sympathetic to the amendment. I am happy to say that I am not bothered
about pressing it to a Division, but I will take drafting suggestions
between now and our deliberations on Report on anything that might
improve it if it is inadequate. However, the purpose is to ensure that
part 2 ends up in the right place, with similar legislation. That would
leave earlier aspects of the Bill which were on a different
issue—we spoke about them at length—to stand in a logical
place. I hope that, in due course, we might be able to put them
somewhere else, too. If I have an excellent idea as to where they could
go tidily, I might come up with that on
Report.
Bridget
Prentice: I am sympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman is
trying to achieve. I agree that it is better for the regulator to be a
member of the family regulating legal and other services. We are
considering carefully how best to pave the way to that type of
integration.
The draft Legal Services Bill
may or may not be enacted in 2007. It is because of the uncertainty
about the changing shape of the market and the number of companies that
will need to be regulated that we want to keep our options open to
retain maximum flexibility in targeting and giving proportionate
regulation. It is also not necessary to put a time limit on the
operation of the legislation. I am not in favour of adding further
provisions to the Bill unless they are absolutely necessary.
Even if the legal services
provision is delayed, I do not want to leave consumers with a
regulatory mechanism that has a sunset provision hanging over it. I
would be concerned about them being left with a terminating regime and
no protection if the Parliament of the day was busy doing something
else. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the
amendment.
Simon
Hughes: I will happily reflect on it. May I just add that
the amendment was drafted after taking technical advice from the Clerks
on what might be acceptable in technical
terms? It being
Seven o’clock, The Chairman
proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order 83D and the Order of the
Committee [20 June], to put forthwith the Question already proposed
from the
Chair. Question
negatived. The
Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions
necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that
time. Clauses
15 and 16 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
17Short
title Amendment
made: No. 12, in clause 17, page 9, line 27, leave out subsection
(2).—[Bridget
Prentice.] Clause
17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Bridget
Prentice: On a point of order, Mr. Atkinson. May I thank
you and Mr. Caton on behalf of all hon. Members for the efficient and
positive way in which you conducted our affairs? We had good debates on
protecting consumers and, in the first part of the Bill,
volunteers.
I am grateful to all hon.
Members, including the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, who
spoke on behalf of the official Opposition, and the hon. Member for
North Southwark and Bermondsey, who spoke on behalf of the Liberal
Democrats.
I am
particularly grateful to my hon. Friends, who have made excellent
contributions throughout. As always, I am grateful to my hon. Friend
the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), who has kept us all in
appropriate order in terms of what we have had to say. However, we are
particularly grateful to you, Mr. Atkinson, and I hope that you will
express our gratitude to Mr. Caton.
Mr.
Heald: Further to that point of order, Mr. Atkinson. May I
join in thanking you and Mr. Caton for acting as our Chairmen? I also
thank the Minister for the courteous way in which she has dealt with
matters. We never decided whether she had blossomed, but her approach
has certainly been constructive.
I thank my hon. Friend the
Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), who has not only done the
shadowy job of acting as the usual channels with her usual aplomb, but
spoken from the Front Bench when I was absent for a period, and I
congratulate her on that. I also congratulate all the other members of
the Committee who have taken an active part in our
proceedings. Finally,
I thank the Clerks, who have been extremely helpful, the attendants,
the police and, of course, those who make sure that our comments are
recorded.
Simon
Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr.
Atkinson. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and I thank you
and your colleague for your chairmanship. My hon. Friend could not be
with us this afternoon, but he associates himself with my thanks, and I
am grateful to him for covering for me one morning when I could not be
here for understandable reasons.
Like other colleagues, I am
grateful to the Minister for her courteous response, and I hope that we
shall learn the lessons of this Committee and use them to good effect
at the next stage, which may not be long delayed.
Bill, as amended, to be
reported.
Committee rose at four
minutes past Seven
o'clock.
| 
