Legal Services Bill [HL]

I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord. I shall try to help him understand the direction in which I seek to go. I do not accept the principle that the appointment of the judiciary is equivalent to the appointment of a regulatory body determining the relationship between the consumer and the provision of services by the legal profession. They are different. Therefore, the work of the Judicial Appointments Commission and the work of many noble Lords in making the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 as good as it is are very different. I have argued that a closer example of what we are seeking to do is to set up a regulatory regime based on what we know works well. No noble Lord has really challenged that. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, rightly says that some would be argued against better than others but, essentially, people believe that regulatory regimes work well. I have explicitly said that I understand that noble Lords are trying to look beyond what I have said, and say ““Well, that is all fine and dandy””—which is what the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, is saying—““but these are different people and need to be thought about in a slightly different way””. I have not disputed that or said that it is not an important issue. I have said that I do not equate it with the appointment of the judiciary and the value and critical nature of the independence of that process. It is different. That does not mean that I do not accept that there is an issue which noble Lords wish me to address.