asked Her Majesty’s Government:

How they propose to reduce carbon emissions from power stations following the European Union climate change agreement on 9 March 2007.

My Lords, power station investments are determined by the market and it is the role of government to establish a market framework that ensures that electricity generation is both secure and low carbon. The main market instrument for achieving this is carbon pricing, currently through the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. In the long term, our goal is to reach international agreement and to have a global carbon market. The EU agreement on 9 March on the greenhouse gas target is a major step towards achieving this aspiration.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he agree that power stations account for 30 per cent of the total UK carbon emissions and that that quantity is growing year by year? Does he further agree, as he has indicated, that steps have already been set out whereby this can be dealt with, including an improved European Emissions Trading Scheme, the encouragement of distributed energy and microgeneration, the further development of renewable energy and the early installation of clean coal plants? In these circumstances and in the light of the climate change agreement, should not the Government now prepare a plan in conjunction with the power station sector and other interested parties to reduce these substantial and growing emissions by a specified rate each year until acceptable levels are reached?

My Lords, the noble Lord has a great deal of experience in this area. The whole point of the spring Council was to agree a limit on greenhouse gas emissions growth over coming years—20 per cent unilaterally by 2020 and 30 per cent if we achieve international action. An important part of this is the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. We are currently in phase 2. We see this as the main mechanism for introducing a carbon price in the UK and the EU and for extending it globally. We see it as a major mechanism for reducing carbon emissions. We are looking at other measures. The noble Lord will know about our position on, for example, the co-firing of power stations. We shall also publish our energy White Paper next month, which will outline our plans in detail.

My Lords, is it not increasingly clear that for a substantial reduction in carbon emissions from energy production to be obtained we shall have to realise a greater percentage of our power from nuclear energy? When will the Government have the courage to make this decision, tell the country that that is what they are going to do and produce a programme for more nuclear power stations?

My Lords, as noble Lords know, the Government produced their Energy Challenge last summer which outlined our belief that nuclear should form part of our future energy mix. That is still the Government’s position, subject to consultation. We shall publish our views in the energy White Paper to which I referred earlier. Of course, nuclear would be only part of the Government’s programme to tackle climate change and reduce CO₂ emissions. Another part of that strategy would be to boost renewable energy, which we think is equally important.

My Lords, in listing the things that the Government would do to reduce carbon emissions, I did not hear the Minister include daylight saving. Is he not aware that this has been done in the United States and Australia for that very reason? Indeed, it is estimated that up to 0.5 per cent of electricity generation and the subsequent carbon emissions could be saved. Can he give a figure on that, and why was it not included in the list that he read out to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra?

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on raising the issue for the third day running. Certainly, he is generating a lot of heat on the issue; whether he is also generating a lot of light remains to be seen.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords, this side.

My Lords, is not carbon emissions trading doomed for failure while member states on the Continent, particularly those where there is a great deal of coal burning, allocate starter packs of such high values of carbon to the industries concerned that there is absolutely no incentive for them to reduce the amount of carbon that they shove into the atmosphere?

My Lords, that is why we toughened up the whole approach to the EU Emissions Trading Scheme between the first phase and the second phase. Under the second phase, the national allocation plans were a lot tougher for member states. As a result, we have seen the price of carbon increase from about half a euro under phase 1, to €17.67 currently. Under phase 3 of the EU ETS, we will see a further strengthening of the price of carbon.

My Lords, given that we now have a European energy policy, should not a core part of that policy be that any new coal-fired stations are able to capture carbon in the way in which they are built? Should not that become a simple part of that energy policy?

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a valid point. It was one of the decisions of the European Union spring Council that carbon-capture and storage should be expanded across the EU—the EU should develop up to 12 carbon capture and storage plants up to 2015 and plants should be carbon-capture and storage ready by 2020. The noble Lord will know that the Chancellor announced that we are having a competition for a carbon capture and storage plant in the UK.

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the new technology that is being installed in Fiddler’s Ferry power station in Cheshire, where ash is being turned into concrete, thereby saving 500,000 tonnes of carbon a year? Will his department monitor the success of that technology and in the light of that success encourage other power stations to follow that example?

My Lords, I agree with the right reverend Prelate that that is a very good example of the sort of power plants and schemes that we would like to see developed in the UK, and my department welcomes it and similar plants.

My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the European Union measures to cut carbon emissions by 20 per cent by 2020. While the Government aspire to meet those obligations, we have some practical plans in place. To meet those obligations, I invite the Minister to support us in setting annual targets for the rate of carbon reduction.

My Lords, the Government have already announced that we will be introducing a climate change Bill, which will contain carbon targets over a five-year period. One argument against annual targets is that, as noble Lords may be aware, the weather may change in the course of a year, and energy demand can go up and down. It is easier to balance over longer periods, and it gives more certainty to industry and business. Five-year carbon budgets are a better way to go, but there will be annual reports to Parliament, and the Government will be advised by the carbon committee.

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

What proportion of the light dues payable by ships entering United Kingdom ports represents a subsidy to support the maintenance of lights in the Republic of Ireland.

My Lords, under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, the UK Government have a statutory responsibility to fund the Commissioners of Irish Lights, the general lighthouse authority that provides aids to navigation in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. In 2005-06, the general lighthouse fund paid £6.4 million, which is around 10 per cent of its total revenue, towards the provision of aids to navigation in the Republic of Ireland.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer, but given the Government’s commitment to a competitive shipping industry is it not a bit ironic that 10 per cent of the tax on ships entering UK ports goes to Irish ports? Do the Government believe that the same should apply also to French or German ports? Is it not ironic that, 80 years after independence, we are still subsidising the lights in the beautiful island of Ireland? Some 18 months ago in this House, on 28 November 2005, my noble friend said that the Government were starting “hard-nosed negotiations” to resolve the matter. Is it not more like treading on eggshells? Are not the Irish Government and the Irish ports laughing all the way to the bank?

No, my Lords. My noble friend will know that under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 the three general lighthouse authorities have responsibility for the provision and maintenance of aids to navigation around the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Yes, I said that we were entering hard-nosed negotiations and I hope that he will be encouraged by the fact that the result of those negotiations was that in February of this year a study was to be set up between the Department of Transport in the Republic of Ireland and our Department for Transport to examine the current funding system and to explore whether there can be a more equitable split in cost sharing between the UK and Ireland.

My Lords, I can go further back than the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. In January 2003, Her Majesty’s Government said in response to the Transport Committee’s report on ports:

“We remain committed to renegotiating the current agreement to require the Republic of Ireland to meet the full costs of provision of their aids to navigation. We will continue to work closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Irish Government to achieve this objective”.

The noble Baroness now tells us that yet another inquiry was started in February. What has been happening for the past three and a half years?

My Lords, we are in constant touch with our colleagues in the Republic of Ireland on this. It is not a simple matter of black and white, shall we say?

Oh!

I can wax lyrical on this for a long time, my Lords, but I will not. We have here three ancient and long-established organisations—the lighthouse authorities for the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. They work extremely well together and they have huge cost savings through the efficiency of their work. The way in which they work is the way forward for the safety of seafarers around the waterways of the UK and the Republic of Ireland.

My Lords, will the noble Baroness reflect on the relationship between her department and the Republic of Ireland? I have received answers from her noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham about our relationship with the Republic with regard to lorries from there that constantly flout the laws on weight and drivers’ hours. I am constantly told that we are in touch with the Irish authorities, but nothing happens, the law is not observed and we in this country seem to get the bad end of the stick, whether on shipping or road transport.

My Lords, I was briefed on boats, not lorries, but I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that we expect to have results from the study within the next month—certainly by the end of 2007. It will be in two phases: one will gather information on the expenditure on aids to navigation, and the other will assess the options based on that evidence and make recommendations for the future.

My Lords, I declare an interest as an Elder Brother of Trinity House. Does the Minister not agree that the present integrated service run by the three general lighthouse authorities is working extremely well? If anything were to bring that co-operation to an end and the Republic of Ireland had to go its own way, the result would be ship owners paying higher light dues in Ireland to the detriment of Irish ports and, possibly, higher light dues in England, Scotland and Wales, because an extra ship might be needed to cover Northern Ireland.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, has just outlined a little of the complexity of this issue. He is right. The burden of light dues on shipping has steadily fallen since 1993; it has fallen by 50 per cent. He is right about the efficiency gains of the three general lighthouse authorities. He talked about the Trinity House authority and the other two. The automation of lighthouses and centralised lighthouse monitoring are efficiency gains. A rather dramatic phrase is “the solarisation of all buoys”, which I am told is also an efficiency gain, as is the collocation of the CIL’s Dublin premises.

My Lords—

My Lords, I am afraid that we are at 15 minutes.

My Lords—

No!

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

How much was spent on flood management and defence in 1997 and 2006; and how much capital was invested in preventive measures in those years.

My Lords, in 1996-97, total government spend on flood management in England was £307 million. Last year it was £590 million. The capital sums for the two years were approximately £127 million and £273 million respectively. All these figures include coast protection projects, which often provide significant flood-risk benefits.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. Does he agree that spending on flood defences needs to rise from the current level of £590 million to £750 million a year by 2011, which is an increase of around 10 per cent each year, so that people and businesses can continue to feel secure in the knowledge that the Government have a long-term, planned and sustainable approach to the reduction of flood risk?

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord’s general point but I cannot agree with the figure. We are spending more than ever before and some £4 billion has been spent across England in the past 10 years. The later years of which he speaks will be subject to the Comprehensive Spending Review that will be conducted later this year.

My Lords, does the Minister accept the advice given in Sir David King’s Foresight review, which is backed up by the Association of British Insurers, the LGA and the board of the Environment Agency, that the funding needs substantially to increase, particularly given the need for adaptation around climate change?

My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. One can spend a lot of money on flood defences and preventive measures for an island nation. We have a fairly large programme of works on the coast and inland but I cannot stand here and say that it should be a certain figure. I have given the figures for the past 10 years, which were asked for in the Question. It has been a substantial programme. There have been modifications to the budget but there have been no capital cuts in the budget. I understand that the Association of British Insurers is content with our programme and with our keeping to our commitment to making flood defences a priority.

My Lords, the fact is that improvements in the programme, which I readily acknowledge and am grateful for, do nothing to match the increased damage caused because of enhanced property values, which have risen much more rapidly than the expenditure on flood prevention. I am not suggesting for a minute that the two could be kept equal but there is a very real problem for property owners in areas that are prone to flooding.

Question!

My Lords, the question is coming immediately. There is a problem because the floods are increasingly the result of freak conditions. Have the Government modified their policy to take account of the change in the weather that is going on increasingly over time?

My Lords, the value of properties obviously goes up. I understand that the Association of British Insurers has reported very few instances in which members have declined to make flood insurance available to households. We, the Government, are keeping our commitment to the ABI for our programme. I understand that the ABI is content with that. There is ongoing work with the shoreline management programme and the long-term work of the Environment Agency in planning for Thames safety for 2100. That work will be needed for the protection of London in the latter part of this century; it is certainly safe for the earlier part.

My Lords, given the likely tight Comprehensive Spending Review, can my noble friend tell us whether his department would be able to manage with a smaller sum?

My Lords, on the evidence in front of me, no.

My Lords, local authorities and the British Waterways Board are under constant pressure from builders and developers to allow the development of housing and other buildings on flood plains. Will the Government assure me that they will assist local authorities and the British Waterways Board in resisting such pressure? If they do not, all the flood management measures will amount to nothing.

My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. Planning policy statement 25 on development and flood risk was published in December last year by the Department for Communities and Local Government. It gives strength to local government and planning departments in refusing planning permission where there is a flood risk and improves the surveillance of the Environment Agency, which is able to block some of these projects.

My Lords, was the flood defence budget for 2007-08 cut in the review prior to the financial year which has just started?

My Lords, no. There was a £15 million cut in 2006-07, which has been more than restored for the Environment Agency in 2007-08, with a budget allocation of £436 million. There was slight dip in 2006-07, none of which affected capital. There was no capital programme cut in flood defences.

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Whether they will seek the removal of the managing director of the World Bank following reported attempts to delete references to contraception from the bank’s Madagascar country assistance programme.

My Lords, no. President Wolfowitz confirmed at the bank’s spring meetings that improving reproductive health is absolutely crucial to development and will remain an integral part of the bank’s new health strategy. We emphasise the great importance that the United Kingdom attaches to reproductive health, including family planning, and to the bank’s support for this in its country assistance strategies. We will continue to press the bank on the critical issue of sexual and reproductive health and rights.

My Lords, has the Minister seen reports of the leaked e-mails from the World Bank official alleging that, on the orders of the managing director, Mr Daboub, all references to family planning were deleted from the Madagascar country assistance programme? Has she seen reports in the newspapers that other programmes in the region have been tampered with and that the World Bank’s strategic programme, which was presented at a meeting last weekend, has been watered down as regards family planning and contraception?

My Lords, we have seen those reports and have been lobbied by a number of our NGOs on this matter. That is precisely why the issue was raised with Mr Daboub himself, not only by the Permanent Secretary of the Department for International Development but also by my colleague Hilary Benn when he attended the spring meetings last weekend. We were assured that sexual and reproductive health remains a key plank in the bank’s strategy. We will of course continue to ensure that that remains the case.

My Lords, the Question specifically mentioned Madagascar. Am I right in thinking that our embassy there is closing, or has closed? If so, who is representing our interests?

My Lords, if I remember rightly, Madagascar is now being covered by our high commission in Mauritius with a local office in Madagascar.

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in asking this Question. I speak as chair of the All-Party Group on Madagascar. On a recent delegation, we were very impressed by the Madagascar action plan, which includes the provision that the fertility rate—the number of children per family—is, according to the plan, falling from 5.4 as of 2005 to between three and four in 2012. Given that such reductions are absolutely indispensable to give a country such as Madagascar any chance of meeting the millennium development goals, would my noble friend note that the Madagascar action plan is very welcome and needs all the international support that can be given to it? The signs that the World Bank is not giving full support are very regrettable, and I hope that the Government will reinforce the message that Hilary Benn and others have given to the World Bank.

My Lords, the Madagascar country assistance plan was approved by the World Bank board on 3 April. It has two pillars: the first is to promote investment and growth in rural and urban areas and the second is to improve access and quality of services, including health. The plan states that, in relation to health, the strategy will help the Government to make further progress on reducing child and maternal mortality by offering access to reproductive services, reducing child malnutrition, improving the availability of clean water and sanitation services, and so on.

My Lords, the World Bank and the IMF are institutions that were founded over 50 years ago and were suitable for the landscape in the world at that time. Today there are serious concerns about the appropriateness of the World Bank and the IMF, let alone the president of the World Bank’s partner’s salary. What are the Government doing to initiate and encourage urgently needed reform of the World Bank and the IMF to make them appropriate for today’s world?

My Lords, the noble Lord may know that we have been at the forefront in pushing for reform at the World Bank and the IMF. He may wish to look at the speech given by my right honourable friend Hilary Benn on 12 April. He talked about the three major issues that need to frame the World Bank’s long-term strategy. He said that it needed to look at its structure, how it helped its members and how it would tackle issues regarding climate change and natural resource depletion.

My Lords, I hope that all noble Lords, and indeed the Minister, have read the report, Return of the Population Growth Factor, by the All-Party Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health. It states clearly, as the noble Lord, Lord Lea, said, that we shall not achieve millennium development goals unless we meet the family planning need all over the world.

Question!

My Lords, it is extremely worrying, therefore, that the Minister has not really answered this question. Is she not concerned that people in the World Bank are using religious reasons to cut programmes, just as the American Government have done with UNFPA programmes? It is a very serious matter. What representations on this issue will she make to those people?

My Lords, I can represent the facts, which are as follows. In a World Bank statement on 15 April, the managing director who is under discussion this afternoon said that he recognised,

“that he is the managing director of an institution that implements policies approved by an international board of executive directors, and that his job is to execute those policies, independently of what his personal views on any particular issue may be”.

We raised the issue with the president of the World Bank, and he has assured my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that these issues remain central to the work of the bank. We will continue to monitor that. The noble Baroness should be well aware of this Government’s commitment to those issues and to meeting the target on reproductive health by 2015. We have put considerable resources into this issue. I cannot deal with speculation in the newspapers; my job is to deal with the facts as they stand.

My Lords, Madagascar has so far escaped the worst of the AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa, but the figures show that sufferers are disproportionately female: there are three times as many young female sufferers as male sufferers. In such a situation, does the Minister agree that contraception and family planning have a vital role to play in combating the disease?

Yes, my Lords, I do. I also think that putting gender equality issues at the centre of the development agenda in Madagascar is critical.

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Triesman, I beg to introduce a Bill to confer power to make provision in relation to the Special Court for Sierra Leone corresponding to that made in relation to the International Criminal Court by Sections 42 to 48 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.

Moved, that the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 4,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 5 to 35,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 36 to 44,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 45 to 48,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 49 to 56,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 57 to 65,

Schedule 6,

Clause 66 ,

Schedules 7 and 8,

Clauses 67 to 69,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 70 and 71,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 72 to 75,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 76 to 78,

Schedule 12,

Clause 79,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 80 to 82.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, that the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 8,

Schedule 1,

Clause 9,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 10 to 23,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 24 to 37,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 38 to 42,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 43 to 46,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 47 and 48,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 49 to 52. —(Lord Rooker.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Andrews, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.

Moved, that it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Greater London Authority Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 4,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 5 to 54,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 55 and 56. —(Baroness Morgan of Drefelin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Chidgey, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 7 [Supplementary powers]:

moved Amendment No. 39:

My Lords, it might assist the House if I report that I understand that, in relation to the amendments to which the noble Lord referred at the beginning of his speech, Hansard incorrectly reported that Amendment No. 38 had been agreed to. In fact, Amendment No. 39 was not moved and a correction to that effect appeared yesterday. I hope that that is helpful.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness the Lord Speaker for indicating the correction that has been made in Hansard. The noble Lord, having moved Amendment No. 38, withdrew it. On the issue of judicial review, as the noble Lord will remember from Monday, he was keen to look at my words to consider carefully whether I had done enough in his view to deal with the matter by indicating that of course judicial review would be available, as it would be with other public bodies of this kind. He is of course at liberty to then decide what he wishes to do.

The noble Lord is also correct to say that the amendment to leave out Clause 7, Amendment No. 39, was grouped with Amendment No. 38, and I indeed replied to it. As he rightly says, it was late in the evening. I am afraid that I assumed that, in speaking to Amendment No. 38, he wished me to respond to both Amendments Nos. 38 and 39, as he did not degroup the amendment but left it where it was.

Clause 7 is essential. As I said, it is a “standard” clause—that is the word that I used. I cited a number of instances where it appears and I hope that the noble Lord will accept that it in no way enables the board to act beyond the parameters of its powers but, rather, gives it within those powers the flexibility that it will need to decide on things such as information technology and staffing. For the benefit of today’s debate, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment and to reflect on the matter further.

My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Baroness. Of course I will withdraw the amendment, but I do not accept that the clause can stand without qualification, as I suggested, taking the words from the speech of the noble Baroness. I merely say that to avoid misunderstanding. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 [The Consumer Panel]:

moved Amendment No. 40:

My Lords, I want to clarify the phrase “non-practising solicitor”. Does the solicitor concerned hold a practising certificate? That is vital, but there is no mention of it here. In other words, should the holding of a practising certificate be the criterion?

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for having given me notice of his question. I have particularly in mind people who have qualified as lawyers but, say, have pursued a more corporate career and have become a company secretary or some equivalent. That company secretary will often also head up the in-house legal department. In many ways, I am trying to tempt the Minister to see that the amendments do not seek to create a huge opening in the requirements that she has laid down, but instead deal with people who are qualified but non-practising solicitors; that is, they do not hold themselves out to act on behalf of clients. Often they will not have a practising certificate, as such, but they consume legal services. Under the Bill, they would be barred from serving on the Consumer Panel. I beg to move.

My Lords, all I am asking is that the noble Lord considers my point further. It may be possible to rebut it, but I think that it is relevant, so will he consider it again?

Yes, of course, my Lords.

My Lords, my noble friend should really save his remarks for a speech rather than intervening on Report in the way in which he has.

My Lords, we on these Benches broadly support the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, has moved so eloquently. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, which is plainly important, will the Minister confirm in her reply that nothing in the clause excludes the appointment to the Consumer Panel of a qualified lawyer who does not hold a practising certificate? My understanding of the clause is that the many lawyers who no longer hold practising certificates may be on the panel. Indeed, those of us who have served as chairmen or members of various tribunals and panels around the country at various times know the immense value that that cohort of people, who are often volunteers, give to the decision-making process at various levels.

Secondly, we have heard from the Minister and ministerial colleagues during the debates on this Bill that it is for the board to make decisions, wherever possible, on how its functions are carried out. Surely it is right for the board that selects members of consumer panels to be able to make decisions on whether non-practising lawyers who hold practising certificates should be members of the Consumer Panel. I understand the direct answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to be, “Yes, this is intended to cover people who hold practising certificates as solicitors, albeit not in fact practising themselves”.

A large body of business does huge amounts of what one might loosely call block litigation—for example, in relation to debt collecting on a very large scale for credit card companies or councils that have not received payments of council tax. The lawyers who manage that kind of work are non-practising, but they are about as large consumers of legal services as one can imagine. I would suggest, in common with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, that that group ought to be regarded as important consumers. In that context, would it not be right for the board, when it sets criteria and decides who should be appointed to the Consumer Panel, to be able, although not obliged, to select applicants from that cohort to become members of the panel?

My Lords, my name is on this amendment. I shall be very short. I declare an interest as a qualified but non-practising member of the Bar. I hope that, having listened to the reasons given in support of this amendment, your Lordships will accept that the amendment is appropriate, indeed requisite, as a matter of practical reality.

My Lords, I rise simply in response to a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, when he referred to certain categories of non-practising lawyers as being important consumers of legal services. Throughout the debates on this Bill, the Government have talked about the importance of consumer interests, which no one would deny are very important. But we have not gone as far as looking at the composition of that consumer interest.

I have been told—I do not know whether it is true—that around 40 per cent of consumers of legal services are either government or local government agencies, or other public authorities that are indirectly related to government agencies. That may or may not be true, but it would be extremely interesting for your Lordships’ House if the Government were to do an analysis of the nature of the consumers of legal services. Often the Government refer to consumer interest; but it must be equally true that sometimes one consumer’s interest is not the same as another’s. Indeed, there may be occasions when consumer interests conflict.

My Lords, I am extremely grateful for this interesting debate. I agree with a large amount of what has been said, but there is a problem with these amendments because they technically do not work. It is very interesting to think about what we mean by the consumer in this context. I do not know whether the figure of 40 per cent is correct. It would not surprise me. If we have any statistics on that, I shall try to dig them out today and circulate them around your Lordships’ House.

In Committee, we talked a lot about the rationale for setting up the Consumer Panel in the Bill and the opportunity to bring consumers together in order to have that input in a very particular way. There were issues, but I am sure that noble Lords were broadly content with what we are seeking to do. Consumers encompass a wide range of different people. Individuals and small businesses consume legal services, as indeed do government departments, big business, voluntary organisations and others. Under the clause, the Consumer Panel is designed to represent those interests and, indeed, is required to think about its representation.

I accept the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Kingsland, that we should think about the role of the board, but we want to make it clear in legislation who we want to ensure is included. It is also true that non-practising but legally qualified professionals could serve on the panel. Where we differ slightly is on the important issue of who should sit as a representative of that corporate body. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, answered that by saying that, through their legal departments, many large corporate bodies instruct outside legal professionals, and I maintain that the consumer in that context is the person asking the legal department to instruct the external legal professionals. Just as I, as a Minister, have legal advisers who will instruct parliamentary counsel or indeed external legal professionals to support and advise me, so, too, noble Lords who are not themselves legally qualified in particular areas will instruct as individuals. We are seeking to ensure that the consumers on this panel are not those practising in the legal profession, wonderful though they may be.

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness, but I wonder whether she would reflect on what she has just said. The voluntary sector, particularly citizens advice bureaux, already instructs lawyers and will remain in a position to do so, perhaps increasingly so, but its representatives will not be excluded from being on the Consumer Panel. There is an inequality between those who happen to be qualified and hold practising certificates and who instruct lawyers formally, and voluntary organisations doing exactly the same. It does not bear logical analysis.

My Lords, I take the noble Lord’s point, but let me try again. The point that I am making is that this is a Consumer Panel that, under the terms of the Bill, does not have on it people who are qualified practising lawyers. Those who are not practising but might be legally qualified will, in our view, be appropriate to sit on the panel, because they would be representing their corporate body or organisation in a different way. That is the fundamental principle behind what we are seeking to do with the Consumer Panel. We want a range of people who, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, was absolutely right to say, are representative of the different kinds of organisations and individuals who consume legal services, but we want to look specifically for people who are not themselves practising legal professionals. They may be qualified, but they will be acting as a corporate consumer, a small business consumer or an individual consumer in this context. It is an important point, but it does not take away from ensuring that a range of voices is heard on the Consumer Panel. This is deliberately designed to be about the role of the consumer, not the consumer as a lawyer talking about legal services.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Just to clarify the point, is she saying that the person within a large corporate consumer of legal services who asks the company secretary or the in-house legal department to instruct an outside firm could well sit on the Consumer Panel? Would it be the individual running that part of the business? Is the noble Baroness saying that that person could represent adequately the views of the huge area of corporate consumers of legal services?

My Lords, if the person is not a practising lawyer—they may be legally qualified but not practising—that is what I am saying. To return to the original point made by the noble Lord, within the Consumer Panel it is important that the breadth of consumer interests is represented. The question is how one best achieves that. We would argue that it is best achieved by taking people from large and small organisations, and perhaps individuals, who are consumers but not practising lawyers—they may be legally qualified, but not practising. How a business chooses to do that is up to the business itself. For example, one would ask a large business in the retail sector to consider who best would represent it. What we would not be looking for is the practising head of that business’s legal department. It might choose an individual who is legally qualified but not practising. That is all there is between us here.

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I have a question about procedure. Does she know why any objection was made to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asking my noble friend a relevant question?

My Lords, the only concern on the government Benches is that we are on Report. We have had six full days in Committee, which were extremely interesting. There are practices, which noble Lords developed long before I came to your Lordships’ House, to enable us to engage with the business on Report and complete it satisfactorily. There are 24 groups for this evening, and another for the third day; I would like to be able to consider them all. Some of the debates we have had before—although, I agree, not this one—and we are trying in our own way to ensure that noble Lords have the time to consider what I know are the important issues ahead.

My Lords, the most important point that the Minister has just made is that she has no criticism at all of her noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, and I thank him for making a very important point. I have looked through the Companion and cannot see any prohibition. Although we are on Report and we should not have too much toing and froing, the noble Lord had an important point to make, and I am grateful to him for making it. I am also grateful to the Minister for clarifying exactly where we stand on this. We have tried a few times to get it right. I must go back and see whether we can find a way through this, and perhaps return to it at Third Reading. I am grateful to my noble friends for their support. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 43:

My Lords, the Minister certainly has a case to answer. My noble friend has set out the background very well. It was my amendment in Committee to establish a practitioner panel. I listened carefully to the Minister and, in view of what she said, decided to dispense with the amendment and not seek to bring it before the House again; but that was on the basis that I had been comforted by her assurances, set out so clearly by my noble friend. I look forward to hearing why we do not have a government amendment and exactly how the noble Baroness intends to proceed.

My Lords, I oppose the cumulative effect of the amendments but not because I do not think that the views of front-line regulators have to be taken into account and that consultation should be protected for them, but because Amendment No. 45 refers to treating front-line regulators in the representative as well as the regulatory capacity in the same way that Clause 10 covers the Consumer Panel.

The procedures in Clause 10 are there for the Consumer Panel because there is an asymmetry of information and expertise, which needs to be taken into consideration in the Bill so that consumers have some right of representation. Were we to give the same representation rights to the Law Society and the Bar Council, for example, they would have the right to object to any decision of the board and would have the same degree of attention that the Consumer Panel is given in order to redress the imbalance in the normal relationship between the legal services and consumers. I do not fundamentally object to those bodies having a consultative relationship, but I object to the view that they should have the same protection that Clause 10 gives the Consumer Panel. That would unbalance what Clause 10 is intended to provide for the Consumer Panel.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, returns to the question of intervention, on which there have been many discussions. Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 are wholly consistent with Sir David Clementi’s original recommendations and the Government’s earlier proposed intention to ensure that the LSB powers of intervention were exercised only in cases where there is a serious impact on regulatory objectives taken as a whole, rather than a merely adverse impact on one or more of those objectives. Consultation, as proposed by these amendments, is an essential means to implement the powers of intervention in a manner originally intended by the Government to maintain the supervisory role and an effective, efficient front-line regulation by the approved bodies.

Your Lordships may think that this matter of principle, to which we return again and again, ought to be recognised as such in the Bill. One might group together certain clauses, such as Clauses 3 to 5 and 40 to 43, for such an exercise. On doing that, one has to distinguish between this statement of principle, which applies only to the LSB and would serve, if expressed, as an amendment to Clause 3, and Amendment No. 5, however redrafted, which would be of generic application to all regulatory bodies and continue to serve as an amendment to Clause 1. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute.

My Lords, I will make a very brief intervention about a question of confidence between the Legal Services Board and the profession. The Bar Council, for example, or individual barristers can make whatever representations they like to the Legal Services Board and the Consumer Panel. I have no doubt that such representations will be taken into account, but I am sure that the Bar Council, the Law Society and other representative bodies will want to work in partnership with the Legal Services Board. In doing so, they will want to take their members with them. They need to persuade their members that they are taking them with them. A requirement to consult would give practitioners, particularly in the larger parts of the legal profession, confidence that the Legal Services Board will really listen to representations. I do not myself believe that the amendments would make any real difference to the process that will be carried out but they might make a very significant difference to the level of confidence that exists between, for example, the Bar—my own profession—and the Legal Services Board.

My Lords, another voice from a non-lawyer might not be inappropriate. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, and I see his point. The idea of the panel is to ensure that consumers have a proper voice. To have a provision in the Bill that counteracts that strongly is not a good plan. What the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has just said is also important. The least that lawyers can expect is to be able under the Bill to make representations of a kind mentioned in these amendments, but that must not in any way act against the provision of the panel. I cannot follow the legal theology of all this, but it seems common sense that lawyers must know that they can make representations, because that is very important to the profession, which has regulated itself up to now—in my view, very adequately.

The Government should pay attention to this, but I have no idea whether these amendments are the right approach.

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, are absolutely right to raise the issue of confidence. I seek to ensure in the legislation that the level of confidence among consumers, the public and the legal profession is at the right level.

The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, who read out my words, is completely right. I agreed that I would take away the principle of mutatis mutandis—which I did not understood until noble Lords explained it to me. I was only making a vague joke when I said that I did not understand it because my Latin was too rusty. I said that we would ensure that we had equality of provision of opportunity for consultation in the legislation. I stand by that. I took the amendment away—

My Lords, if I may respectfully suggest to the Minister, she went further than that. She said in terms, on two occasions, that she accepted the amendment.

My Lords, the amendment was about mutatis mutandis. I think that I was very clear to noble Lords that I sought to ensure that whatever I brought forward in the Bill—

No.

My Lords, if the noble Lord disagrees, he can divide the House; that is fine. It is up to him. I want to be clear about what I understood that I did, and the noble Lord can perfectly legitimately challenge that. I accepted the principle of the amendment; I did not accept the wording, or I would have accepted it on the Floor of the House.

I said that there was an issue about enabling the professions to talk to and be consulted by the Legal Services Board on a level with that of the Consumer Panel. My noble friend Lord Whitty indicated, and noble Lords are in broad agreement, that there is an understanding that we need to set up the Consumer Panel to enable it to be formally consulted because it exists in a different way and will come into being only by being brought together by the Legal Services Board with the current regulators.

I absolutely agree that I took the amendment away. I talked with my ministerial colleagues and took advice on it; we talked to a variety of people, and my honourable friend Bridget Prentice, the Minister responsible for the policy, looked at the issue very carefully. The advice that I got back was that the Bill provides a variety of means whereby consultation is available, both specifically as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland indicated—

My Lords, I have only one quick question: what is the objection to this amendment? What goes on with colleagues is one thing, but what is the objection to this amendment in the way in which it is put before the House today?

My Lords, one of the disadvantages of the noble Lord interrupting is that I cannot complete my speech. If he will wait until I have finished he may well need to ask me that question if he feels that I have not explained the matter properly. I was trying to explain the process that I had gone through and to give reasons. The noble Lord may disagree with them and feel that I have not explained them properly; that is completely reasonable, but at this stage in our proceedings I cannot always necessarily answer questions with the speed and brevity that he would like because other noble Lords need to hear the rationale.

I accept the principle that there should be equality of representation on behalf of consumers and professionals, but I do not accept that the amendments before us achieve that. We need to have a Consumer Panel for the reasons that I have given, but giving general rights to approved regulators to have their representations heard in addition to their rights to make representations on the large number of provisions in the Bill and their ability to set out regulatory arrangements that are in the interests of authorised persons would unbalance the system again. As I say, noble Lords can disagree with my conclusions. I accept the principle of making sure that we have equality and consultation. When I looked at how to produce an amendment that might achieve that, I was strongly advised that we had already achieved it. Therefore, I did not table any further amendments. Noble Lords may agree or disagree with that but I did it in good faith.

We have well established, well organised and possibly well funded bodies that represent the interests of authorised persons. They will be unshackled from their regulatory responsibilities so that their representative arms can lobby the board more effectively and freely than they do at present. The board will want to ensure that it takes on board all sides of the argument before coming to a decision or taking action; indeed, it is in its interests to do so as it can be judicially reviewed if it comes to an unreasonable conclusion.

If the board fails to consult a body that could be directly affected by its action, that would be inconsistent with the principles of best regulatory practice which Clause 3 requires the board to have regard to. The board must listen to and consult the bodies under good regulatory practice. It also knows that it can be judicially reviewed if its decisions are arrived at unreasonably.

In addition, throughout the Bill there are specific ways in which the board must consult. Added together and weighed against the formation of a Consumer Panel, it is our view that we have achieved what your Lordships desired and the principle, which I completely accept, of equality of representation. Although the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, may feel that I have not fulfilled my obligations, I took away the principle in good faith and believe that we have achieved it. Noble Lords will reach their own decisions on that accordingly.

My Lords, as always, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her response. However, she will have heard from my noble friend Lord Hunt that he decided not to retable his amendment establishing a practitioner panel precisely because of the clear statements that he believed she made on Amendment No. 38 and its effect on Clause 10.

In my submission the noble Baroness gave an undertaking in Committee that she accepted, in terms, Amendment No. 38 and went on to explain exactly what impact it had on Clause 10. I shall not press the matter further today except to say that, in the light of this debate, I am sure she will now look again at what she said. I submit to the noble Baroness that if she were not to come back at Third Reading with an amendment that accepted what was Amendment No. 38 in Committee, that would be an extremely serious matter for your Lordships’ House. I do not want her to be in any doubt about that.

My Lords, let me be clear. I accept full responsibility for my role in relation to this Bill. When this Bill is in your Lordships’ House—whether it begins here or comes here after another place—and while I am responsible for it, I take responsibility for the policy. My references to my honourable friend are to make sure that noble Lords know that I consulted the person who is responsible for developing the policy; otherwise noble Lords might feel that I had made an arbitrary decision without consulting my colleagues. I refer noble Lords to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill, for which I hold policy responsibility. Members of another place may refer to that fact during the passage of the Bill through that House. In a sense, it is a sign of respect and recognition of that role. That is what I seek to do. Of course, my noble and learned friend, whom I have consulted on all these issues, takes absolute and overall responsibility for the Bill, but I take responsibility for my commitments, my words and the work that I do.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, and by saying what she said about the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor she teased the point out for me. While I am grateful to the noble Baroness, at the same time I would not like her to be in any doubt about the seriousness with which we regard this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 not moved.]

Clause 12 [Meaning of “reserved legal activity” and “legal activity” ]:

moved Amendment No. 46:

My Lords, I confess that I am amazed by the provision that seeks to exclude wills from the provisions of the Bill. Schedule 2(5), part of which the noble Lord’s Amendment No. 48 seeks to leave out, states that:

“‘Reserved instrument activities’ means … preparing any instrument of transfer or charge for the purposes of the Land Registration Act … or preparing any other instrument relating to real or personal estate for the purposes of the law of England and Wales”.

Sub-paragraph (3) states that “instrument” includes any contract for the disposition of land,

“except a contract to grant a short lease”.

So, reserved activities are covered if I want to let a house or some land other than on a short lease, or if I want to give away a bit of my real estate to someone during my lifetime. However, for some extraordinary reason, on my death, when I dispose of all I own and set up some trusts, or something for that purpose, that is not covered. I do not understand how a small transaction inter vivos is caught, but this total disposal of my property on my death is excluded, can be done by anyone and is not an activity governed by the Bill. I look forward to some enlightenment.

My Lords, there has been full discussion on this matter at previous stages of the Bill and the question as to whether will writing should become a reserved legal activity has, as my noble friend has said before, been under consideration for some time—most recently since the announcement in March 2005 by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State that his department would consider the case for the regulation of will-writing and estate administration services.

If I may, I will read out the next paragraph of my speaking note and then return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Since that time we have worked closely with consumer bodies, the legal profession, those outside that profession who currently provide will-writing services, and the Office of Fair Trading, and have asked them to provide us with any evidence that might suggest that there is a systemic failure in the current will-writing market and that consumers are being put at risk as a result. The DCA has met the Institute of Professional Willwriters, the Office of Fair Trading and others to discuss voluntary jurisdiction. The DCA has asked the institute to provide the OFT with a draft set of rules for consideration under the code. Our view is that if there is any evidence of systemic failure, the LSB may make a recommendation to the Lord Chancellor under Clause 23 for will-writing services to be added to the list of reserved legal services.

We acknowledge that there may be a problem. We want evidence, which has not been forthcoming, although one or two points have been made at earlier stages of this Bill. But we are not set against this; we just wish it to be discussed. As I have said, we need evidence that there is a problem that needs to be solved.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, for his compelling and persuasive intervention. I am slightly confused by the Minister’s reply because the chairman of the Institute of Professional Willwriters, Mr Paul Sharpe, contacted me on Monday to say that the institute had submitted a report—and he has sent me a copy of the report—demonstrating that voluntary regulation is not working and containing some of the points that I raised at the Committee stage. He said that there has been no further contact with the DCA since July 2005, following which it submitted the report in September 2005. As I understand it from the Minister, he is under the impression that there has been continuing contact. The only way forward here is to get an assurance from the Minister that a further meeting will take place so that we can at least regularise this position. I see that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness are nodding and, as far as I am concerned, if there is to be a further—

My Lords, the institute has been in regular e-mail correspondence with the department. The department has not seen the report that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has in his hand. I think that the way through this is for there to be meetings between now and the next stage of the Bill so that we can sort this out. I do not think that there is any real disagreement here; there is obviously a procedural problem that needs to be sorted.

My Lords, in response to the noble Lord’s points, I beg leave to withdrawn the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 2 [The reserved legal activities]:

moved Amendment No. 47:

moved Amendment No. 49:

moved Amendment No. 50:

My Lords, in so far as these amendments, so eloquently introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, reflect suggestions that we have made, we are most grateful.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendments Nos. 51 to 62:

moved Amendments Nos. 63 to 70:

moved Amendments Nos. 71 to 82:

moved Amendment No. 83:

My Lords, I think that I am happy to say that I did not participate in the debate in Committee on this topic and that I was not present. However, I have enjoyed reading, with loving attention, every word of that debate. We on these Benches entirely agree with what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland.

However, a practical problem occurs to me. During the debate on Monday, I declared my interest as head of a fairly large set of barristers’ chambers in London. The way the system operates at the moment is that, from time to time, the General Council of the Bar—which was accurately described a few moments ago by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland—has to react to problems that have arisen. On the whole, it reacts to them quickly. From time to time, I, as a head of chambers, receive an email telling me that there has been a change to the Bar Council’s code of conduct, which is an important document that is frequently cited in court when issues of ethics arise during cases. If a head of chambers is responsible, he or she ensures that the communication from the Bar Council is instantly circulated to all barristers and clerks so that it is known to all the barristers within the collegiate atmosphere that still exists in many sets of chambers. Therefore, within a very short time of a critical incident arising, a change in the code of conduct can be communicated and put into practice. If necessary, it can be done in a couple of days. Without the amendment, the legislation would seek the inevitable introduction of a cumbersome, bureaucratic procedure, which will mean that an approved regulator—whose code of conduct so far as I am aware has rarely been criticised—will not be able to sustain that very useful and active discipline. I cannot believe that that is the Government’s purpose, but it is the result of the legislation as it stands.

I ask the Minister to respond to that point as it is causing some perplexity among those of us who practice at the Bar—led, as we have been from time to time with great practical effect, by people such as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, who, when chairman of the Bar Council, took a leading part in ensuring that the code of conduct was kept up to date in the way I have described.

My Lords, I am not sure that my twelfth intervention will make a huge amount of difference. For the benefit of noble Lords who have not had the joy of participating in debates or reading Hansard, let me say that we were looking at two things: first, whether you had a situation where the board gets all the changes and then makes a decision on whether it wishes to have certain changes exempt from the process or with minimal review by the board; and, secondly, whether the board at the beginning says, “We don’t want to see the following things” and that only those it wished to see should come forward.

We looked at the matter in great detail. We considered how it would look if we redrafted it, and we had a good think about it. It is a choice we had to make, which I still think is the right one. We sought to say that our principle in setting up this new framework would be that changes should be sent to the board and that the board can say, either in the course of receiving those changes or, indeed, in advance, that it does not wish to receive certain ones, that some can be exempt and that some require merely minimal approval.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, made a point about wanting to have the code of practice changes. I note his tribute to my noble friend Lord Brennan, which I share. We would want those done in the same way. We do not want this process to be bureaucratic. The question really came down to whether it is right that the board in advance says, “We don’t need to see any of the following aspects”, or should it receive them and then make a decision later about which it wishes to have exempt. So the question was: did the decision on that rest with the board or the regulator? It is not a question of trust. We hope that this will be one of the ways they will work closely together in partnership.

However, we felt that it was important to leave the matter with the board. It was a choice we made. We do not think that the outcome will be hugely different because we believe that the board will swiftly move to say, “It is quite clear there are areas where we do not need to see the changes that are being made, or where we can deal with them very quickly”.

What I do know is—not in this area but in other areas of life—that small changes sometimes have big effects. Therefore, it is important for the new regime to enable the board to see the kind of changes being made and to be able to consider the effects being made. That was a decision we took.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for setting out the position that she previously set out at greater length, and perhaps with less continuity, than she has done this afternoon. She has not changed her position, but of course I always respect her for courageously sticking to her guns. However, her answer is not satisfactory to us. Although I shall not be seeking the opinion of the House on the matter today, I shall nevertheless consider whether it would be appropriate to return to the issue at Third Reading. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 5 [Authorised persons]:

moved Amendments Nos. 84 to 91:

moved Amendment No. 92:

moved Amendments Nos. 93 to 97:

moved Amendments Nos. 98 to 102:

moved Amendments Nos. 103 to 107:

moved Amendments Nos. 108 to 113:

moved Amendments Nos. 115 and 116:

moved Amendment No. 118:

moved Amendment No. 119:

My Lords, we on these Benches agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that Clause 30 imposes too light a trigger on the exercise of what, on the face of it, are draconian powers that could lead to an approved regulator ceasing to be so approved. The concept of compatibility with the regulatory objectives as a whole is recognised as an holistic, inclusive concept in Clause 3. We believe that that concept should be in Clause 30. Indeed, it is plain common sense that there should be this inclusive view of what Clause 3 calls,

“compatible with the regulatory objectives”.

One can think of many examples in which there could be conflict between some of the regulatory objectives set out in Clause 1(1) but not with the regulatory objectives as a whole. A simple example of this is,

“protecting and promoting the interests of consumers”,

in Clause 1(1)(c). There may be very good reasons for a professional body saying that no lawyer should conduct a clinical negligence case unless that lawyer has some training and experience in conducting those cases. However, part of the regulatory objectives in Clause 1(1)(d) is to promote,

“competition in the provision of services within subsection (2)”.

My understanding is that in north Wales, for example, only one solicitor—there may be more now, but certainly a few months ago there was only one—had the approval to carry out clinical negligence cases and so receive funding from the Legal Services Commission. There is plainly a conflict between competition and a decision that only people who are really competent to do certain types of cases should do them. The provisions we are considering could be triggered not by the consideration of those two regulatory objectives together but by one of them alone without considering the other. It seems a matter of practical common sense that the approach taken in Clause 3(2)(a) should be consistently applied throughout the Bill.

My Lords, I retain the concerns that I expressed earlier. This ought to be looked at. To have a single adverse impact is inadequate to achieve the light touch that is needed.

My Lords, I agree. At paragraph 178 of the Joint Committee report on the draft Legal Services Bill we unanimously agreed that amendments of this type should be brought forward. We regret that the Minister has not yet done that and await her words with great interest.

My Lords, I support this amendment, but I have to do so having moved Amendment No. 5, which is related to this amendment. There, I deal with the balance of the relevant regulatory objectives as the basis for a reasoned decision. This amendment rides totally in relation to that. It is very interesting that this balance was approved by the Minister on the first day of Report. She said:

“The board, while operating within the objectives, must balance those objectives appropriately, as noble Lords seek”.—[Official Report, 16/4/07; col. 102.]

There is not much between us on the fundamental principle. If there is, I do not know what it is. On that basis, I support the amendment.

My Lords, this group of amendments deserves serious consideration by the Government. Here is a Bill to introduce a super-regulator, the Legal Services Board. They have said that it can be clothed and armed with heavyweight powers but that it will operate with a light touch. Such confidence in regulatory self-denial suggests inconsistency with ordinary human experience. I therefore invite the Minister to consider this state of affairs. If you have a series of separate objectives which can be separately considered, and any one of them will allow the trigger of intervention, the legal services world, to be so regulated, would reasonably expect the board at the very least to have a statement of policy on how it will implement these single objectives at any one time or in combination. These amendments suggest, by the introduction of the words “one or more” or “significant”, that you create a state of affairs where there is a policy base for the Legal Services Board to act on.

“Significant” is a pretty poor adjective, but if it is there to achieve compromise then it is better than nothing. It might be said that it is the kind of word which is so vague as to be incapable of challenge legally or intellectually, but I remind the House that in the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill we enacted the use of the word “substantial” as a core ingredient in the creation of a new criminal offence, confident that any jury would understand how it was to be understood and applied. I hope that in dealing with the amendments it will be accepted that this is a desire not to control power exercisable by the Legal Services Board but rather to seek a framework in which the legal services world can operate more efficiently.

My Lords, my ambition is that the Legal Services Board will never have to use its powers. The difficulty is that when one sets up in legislation a system that enables action to be taken when things go wrong, the implication or assumption is that the relationship will be a negative one. Our ambitions are more positive. We have talked about partnership, a light touch and how we expect the regulator to operate in an overarching and not an overbearing way. On that I think we are all agreed. Where the board might find itself having to use these powers, we are also all agreed that they should be used appropriately, expediently and efficiently. They should not be used in any inappropriate way, and that is why we have laid out in Clauses 30 to 34 what the powers are, how they are to be used and so forth, and why in Clause 48 we have enabled the board to produce policy statements about its powers and other matters. It is also why in Clause 3 we have said that the board must act within the best regulatory practice. We believe that the objective sought by noble Lords, particularly in the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, of medical negligence cases, would be covered by the combination of regulatory objectives and the way in which the board will operate. The noble Lord gave a good example of where I would not expect the board to use its power.

The question is whether there could be circumstances where problems had arisen with one of the objectives and it was felt that action should be taken. The difficulty with the amendment is that it would mean, in effect, that the board would have to look at all the objectives to see whether they, too, were being—I use the word advisedly—flouted. I cite as an example access to justice, an extremely important issue that we have debated and will continue to debate on Report. There could be an issue on which the board felt it had to act but, on the basis of this amendment, it could not act because the other regulatory objectives were not being damaged. That would hinder the operation of the board in a way that I do not think noble Lords want.

The adjective “significant” was proposed, although the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said that other adjectives could be used. Again, the difficulty for the board is that “significant” when considered from the legal perspective—noble Lords know that I am not a lawyer but I do take legal advice—could hinder the board from operating. For example, if the board were working with a small regulator, could a case where only very few people were affected, albeit extremely adversely, be considered significant? Ultimately it would be for the courts to decide, but from the perspective of this legislation, we do not want to put the board in a position where it feels disempowered to act because of the word “significant”. However, we believe that the objectives sought by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in this amendment are already achieved in the Bill.

Noble Lords are right to want to ensure that the board operates properly, that it considers carefully what is happening and why, that it does not take inappropriate action, is light touch in its operations and conforms to good regulatory practice. All that is already set out in the Bill; therefore there is nothing between us in terms of what is required.

My Lords, I should like to understand what the Minister was saying a little earlier. Is she saying that the condition proposed by the amendment, “an adverse impact on the regulatory objectives taken as a whole”, would only be met if all the objectives were adversely affected? I do not understand it that way. As I understand it, you look at the totality of the objectives and ask whether some of them are adversely affected and whether that consideration is not outweighed by improvement to the other objectives. Surely that is what one is meant to be doing. If the Minister is really saying that the provision can only be triggered if all the objectives are adversely affected, I see great force in her argument, but I do not think that that is what the amendment begins to say.

My Lords, the noble Viscount—for me, anyway—makes my point. “Taken as a whole” means taken as a whole; if a regulatory objective that said “supports the constitutional principle of the rule of law” were being damaged in some way, but every other objective was being met in a way that we would applaud, the board, according to what I believe the noble Viscount said, could not act. I am saying that the board must be able to act. Of course—I have been explicit about this, and I think I have been quoted on it—the balance with what is happening, which is where the example of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, comes in, is critical. That is what good regulatory practice says under Clause 3, and it is what the board is required to do. Under the amendment, the board simply could not act if there was a serious problem on the rule of law, access to justice or other aspects of the regulatory objectives that noble Lords might feel are more important than others but the other objectives were not affected. That is not what we would wish to see.

With respect, my Lords, the Minister misunderstood the intent of the amendment, as I understand it, and its wording. “Taken as a whole” is very different from “all the objectives”. If the Bill said, “had an adverse impact on all the regulatory objectives”, I would see her point, but it does not. I think she seriously needs to think again about the effect of the amendment.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount—

My Lords, I have a simple question. Does the Minister really understand what is being said, and said particularly well by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan: what we are creating is, so to speak, a structure for a judicial approach? That is the basis; we are not saying any more than that.

My Lords, I understand my noble friend Lord Brennan—he has given me some of his time to discuss this—and the noble Viscount. But I wish to explain how the reasons for which noble Lords seek this provision in the legislation are already dealt with in the Bill therefore they need not move their amendments. The amendments as framed would not have beneficial implications for the regulatory framework that we seek to set out. That is the fundamental difference between us. I am arguing that the amendments are unnecessary to achieve what is required and can therefore safely be withdrawn without fear that there will be a problem in the running of the Legal Services Board.

My Lords, I understand the Minister—

My Lords, we are on Report, and the Minister has now sat down.

My Lords, am I in order or not?

No.

My Lords, the noble Viscount has already deployed his immense gifts for oratory to very considerable effect. He has helped to sharpen and define exactly what the issue is between us and the Government.

In my opening remarks, I drew your Lordships’ attention to some observations made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, at Second Reading, when she pointed out that almost inevitably, where you have eight objectives, there will be some conflict between them: some will pull in one direction, some will pull in another. At the end of the day, a balanced view has to be taken about whether the importance of one regulatory objective outweighs the other. That is essentially the point the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has made and is exactly the intention behind the amendment.

We have had a number of exchanges with the Government about these issues; the time has come to test the opinion of the House.

moved Amendment No. 120:

moved Amendments Nos. 121 to 123:

moved Amendments Nos. 124 and 125:

moved Amendments Nos. 126 to 128:

moved Amendment No. 131:

My Lords, we thank the Government for tabling amendments to restrict the power to fine to circumstances where an approved regulator fails to comply with a direction, or breaches the provisions concerning separation of regulatory from representative functions or the use of the practising certificate fee. This largely takes care of the concerns that we expressed about being fined for matters that are outside the control of the representative bodies. I am most grateful.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendments Nos. 132 to 134:

moved Amendment No. 135:

My Lords, I am grateful for the explanation that the noble Lord has given, but I am not persuaded that I want to go further. The noble Lord was gracious in seeing that I had responded to the comments made in Committee and in our conversations with the Law Society and the Bar Council. We do not want to see the fining power in the same category as the powers to intervene directly with approved regulators or to cancel an approved regulator’s designation. Those are very different, but that would be the effect of Amendment No. 135. We do not believe that the fining power is of the same order of magnitude.

On a more practical level, the amendment would reduce the board’s ability to make a flexible response to a regulatory failure. The argument in the Macrory review, as noble Lords will know, is that the move is towards greater flexibility where sanctions are used. We have already said many times in the passage of this legislation that we hope that these sanctions will not be used. However, where they are used, the argument is to enable those using them to have the greatest possible flexibility to use the most appropriate sanction at any given time.

I indicated that, in our discussions with consumer groups, they expressed great concern that we should not constrain the fining power because they saw it as an important part of a regulator’s toolkit, which, if it were to be used, would send the clear and important message that the regulator was willing to act on their behalf.

We believe that we again have the right balance. We have made a move to accept in part what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said in Committee about my previous amendments following discussions with the regulatory bodies, but it is important to retain flexibility and, therefore, we must ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I am most grateful for the noble Baroness’s response and I am aware that she has already given some ground in this area by the amendments to which she spoke in the previous group on the list. I am disappointed at her reply; but, bearing in mind that there has been some movement by the Government, I shall hope for some more movement between now and Third Reading. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendments Nos. 136 and 137:

moved Amendments Nos. 139 and 140:

moved Amendments Nos. 141 to 143:

moved Amendments Nos. 144 and 145:

moved Amendments Nos. 146 to 148:

moved Amendments Nos. 149 to 151:

moved Amendments Nos. 152 to 155:

moved Amendments Nos. 156 to 158:

moved Amendments Nos. 159 to 161:

moved Amendments Nos. 162 to 164:

moved Amendment No. 165:

moved Amendments Nos. 166 to 169:

moved Amendments Nos. 170 to 173:

moved Amendment No. 174:

My Lords, I do not want to repeat what was said by others at the previous stage of this Bill, particularly as my noble friend Lord Maclennan is inclined to use colourful language from time to time. He described Clause 48 as an “incubus”, prompting an exchange about the writings of Edgar Allan Poe, which the Minister, understandably, told us she had no time to read at present. I also think that my noble friend Lord Maclennan described the Legal Services Board as a “behemoth” the other day. Whatever colourful language one uses, it is very important for approved regulators to know what it is.

We have heard repeated statements of policy, which of course we take at face value, stating that this is intended to be light-touch regulation. In Clause 48, we have a single clause that deals with the way in which policy statements are to be issued, and the approved regulators will look to this clause and what goes with it to understand their relationship with the Legal Services Board. If ever there was a place where the policy should be expressed and where it should be made clear that the policy is that there should be light-touch regulation, this is it. I hope that the Minister will accept that these amendments, whether or not the wording is perfect, are intended to ensure that, in this crucial policy section of the Bill, the approved regulators will see a demonstration of that light-touch approach. It is not anywhere in the Bill at present, and this surely is the place in which to position it.