---

Legal Services Bill [HL]

My Lords, it really pains me to stand up at the Opposition Dispatch Box and once again take issue with what the noble Baroness says, especially as she has spoken in such measured and conciliatory tones. Yet she must know by now, having had these exchanges not only at Second Reading but also in Committee, that what she has said simply will not wash. I find it difficult to understand how the noble Baroness can in one breath say that she absolutely accepts everything that has been said about the high quality of the Bar Standards Board and the way the Bar deals with complaints, and yet, in another breath, say that, even if in reality these standards are high, the public have doubts—that there is a public perception that somehow these standards, which she knows are met, are not being met. Where does this perception come from? What evidence does the noble Baroness have that there is a public perception that, despite all the evidence, the Bar Standards Board falls below requirements that have been tested over a long period? There is no such perception. Then the noble Baroness says that there is concern that it is lawyers judging lawyers. The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, had the complete answer to that; there are 10 lay members on the Bar Standards Board. The ultimate say on whether a Bar Standards Board decision stands is made by a lay person. Why does the noble Baroness think that the Legal Services Board has nothing to do with the law? There will be lawyers on the board. Further, why is sheso convinced that the Legal Services Board is independent, whereas the Bar Standards Board is not? Did not your Lordships pass an amendment requiring the Lord Chancellor to have concurrent advice from the Lord Chief Justice precisely because the House does not believe that, as presently structured under this Bill, the Legal Services Board is independent? I know how hard the noble Baroness has striven to resolve this particular problem in the Bill; but I have to say to her, most disappointingly, that I cannot accept her arguments as a satisfactory substitute for these amendments, and therefore again I wish to test the opinion of the House. On Question, Whether the said amendment(No. 383) shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 185; Not-Contents, 135.