---

Legal Services Bill [HL]

I do not believe the Minister needs the assistance of the Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, as I was about to demonstrate. We need a structure and these amendments give us an opportunity of reflecting on what kind of structure should follow the Minister's acceptance, in principle, of the balance that was so effectively argued by my noble friend. I hope the noble Viscount accepts that there needs to be some kind of structure. If one simply allows representations from the most powerful bodies, one will neglect a number of different areas that might not be covered. I think the Joint Committee was persuaded that the practitioner panel should sit alongside the Consumer Panel on grounds of balance. In the regulatory objectives there is already a duty on the board of, "““protecting and promoting the interests of consumers””." It will be assisted in that by the consumer panel. Those objectives are not yet worded to our satisfaction but there is also the objective of, "““encouraging an independent, strong, diverse and effective legal profession””," and the objective of, "““promoting and maintaining adherence to the professional principles””." The Joint Committee had in mind that in reaching conclusions on how to meet those regulatory objectives it would be of assistance if the Legal Services Board had the opportunity to consult a practitioner panel, not only on day-to-day regulation, but also in areas similar to, say, Clause 11 on the need to promote research and to explore further, with practitioners, how best to achieve the regulatory objectives. If one asks the Financial Services Authority whether the practitioner panel has been of value, it would answer in the affirmative. In defence of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, who probably needs no defence from me, he argued at Second Reading very effectively that the chair of the Legal Services Board should not be prevented from being a lawyer. He did not feel that lawyers should be excluded from becoming chair of the Legal Services Board because that would, "““carry too far the view that lawyers must give way to laymen in this modern age””.—[Official Report, 6/12/06; col. 1187.]" That was a very persuasive intervention. This Bill must be all about balance and I hope that when the Minister considers how to take forward the commitment that she has just given, she will also bear in mind the unanimous view of the Joint Committee.