Legal Services Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 19: 19: Schedule 1, page 113, line 17, at end insert ““secure that persons are appointed on merit and in accordance with the principles appearing to them to represent the best practice in making appointments to public office, and must”” The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kingsland. Its purpose is to insert in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1, dealing with the Legal Services Board, that, in appointing persons to be ordinary members, the Secretary of State must, "““secure that persons are appointed on merit and in accordance with the principles appearing to them to represent the best practice in making appointments to public office and must””—" then the clause continues— "““have regard to the desirability””," et cetera. Really, this amendment seeks to do what the Select Committee recommended in our report, namely that there should be some reference in the Bill to Nolan principles. We have already dealt with Nolan principles, but what this amendment is seeking to do is ensure that all the appointments of members of the Legal Services Board would have to be made on merit. This amendment is not only in line with the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee, but a number of other bodies have said how strongly they support such an amendment. Of course it follows on from our discussions about the independence of the legal profession. The Bar Council has stated that it believes that this amendment would enshrine the Nolan processes without explicitly referring to them by name, and would ensure that we get the best possible people. In our Joint Committee we recommended that Nolan itself should be in the Bill. We recommended that recruitment by Nolan processes should be included explicitly on the face of the draft Bill. But I think we would recognise that this amendment in effect does that a little more discreetly, because from time to time these principles may well be changed, improved or further amended, so by putting ““Nolan”” in the Bill we may be unnecessarily restrictive. The Select Committee’s belief that adherence to the Nolan principles should underpin all government appointments is strongly held. For the actuality and the appearance of independence, it is important to maintain that there should be a statutory requirement in the Bill to ensure that those principles are followed. In effect, the amendment would underpin the independent nature of the members of the board. It is a provision that at all times a majority of members of the board should be lay persons. That is why the previous amendment was so important in ensuring that the definition of ““lay person”” would not exclude people who in the past have had some legal training or experience. Whatever one feels about the Legal Services Board, I think we are all unanimous in believing that its members have to be the best possible people. That is why we need to ensure that the right processes are followed. Comments are always made—indeed, there has been a recent report by a think tank—that some appointments are political or include members of a particular political party. We all want to rise above that in setting up the Legal Services Board, which is why I have much pleasure in moving an amendment that I believe will secure that aim. I beg to move.