---

Legal Services Bill [HL]

My Lords, this debate may be completely unnecessary. In response to the points that my noble friend and the noble Lord have just made, the noble Baroness clearly stated: "““We will look at this again””.—[Official Report, 9/1/07;col. 179.]" Therefore, we await the result of her researches. I agree with my noble friend and with the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, in particular when in Committee he referred to this clause as an ““escape clause””. Surely, as my noble friend pointed out in Committee, Clause 3(2)(b), which states, "““which the board considers most appropriate for the purpose of meeting those objectives””," clarifies the situation. I reread the comments of the noble Baroness in Committee, but that provision already gives the board the flexibility of ensuring that it acts in a way that is compatible with the regulatory objectives. Where there is some tension or conflict between those objectives, Clause 3(2)(b) gives the board the power to consider the most appropriate way of meeting those objectives. As I have said, this debate may be completely unnecessary, because the Minister assured us that she was taking legal advice, which is always a slightly worrying comment. We await with anticipation what, having now taken legal advice, she will say.