Legal Services Bill [HL]

Perhaps I may sound a word of caution. If you have three different boards with three different sets of objectives, all slightly differently worded, and something that is in set one is not in set two, or differently worded in set two, are you not promoting the most wonderful field day for lawyers to produce enormously complicated arguments? They could argue, for example, on the basis that set one says ““x””, but set two says ““x with y added””, and set three says ““x with z excluded””. You would be asking people to dance on the head of the proverbial pin, trying to find reasons or arguments based on such subtle distinctions. Would it not be better to have a wider set of principles that apply to all three sets and allow the person doing the work and anybody asked to adjudicate on that work to say, ““These are all the objectives, but this one is less important in the context of the work that my body is required to do””? I thought of this only while the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, was speaking, but I wonder whether he is not simply creating a very profitable field for our profession.