Schedule 1
Legal Services Bill [Lords]
4:15 pm
David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate, Conservative)
One part of the wide-ranging debate is the fact that different views exist. We heard that the consumer bodies have different views about the particular details of the process, but Sir David Clementi was not against the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice as a matter of principle. His primary concern was that this should not be the sole responsibility of the Lord Chief Justice or the like. He was also explicitly concerned that there needs to be an involvement of, and recognition of the responsibility and importance of, the Lord Chief Justice or the like to maintain the independence of the profession. That not only needs to be done; it must be seen to be done.
The concern, heightened by all the Minister’s justification for the amendment, is that the independence of the profession must be guaranteed in the Bill. If one were to apply the process, the Nolan principles and the Commissioner for Public Appointments would be involved, there would be consultation with other groups—consumer groups and the like—and the Lord Chief Justice would be involved in a formal manner. The concerns of consumer groups would properly be directed.
It is important that the regulatory objectives, in all their ways, are properly balanced. This amendment would not ensure that. I ask the Minister to take proper account of Sir David Clementi’s remarks that the LSB should not only be independent, but be seen as such. Will the Minister give me a birthday present? It might not be my best or most personally cherished one, and it would not be for lawyer colleagues—