Legal Services Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 31: 31: Clause 3 , page 2, line 24, at end insert— ““( ) The Board must, so far as is reasonably practicable, act in partnership with the approved regulators.”” The noble Lord said: One of the recommendations of the Joint Committee was that the draft Bill should ensure that, consistent with the Government’s policy, lead responsibility should rest with the approved regulators; and that the Legal Services Board should act in partnership with the approved regulators, seeking to resolve differences by agreement wherever possible. In their response to the Joint Committee, the Government said: "““The Government agrees that the intention of the Legal Services Board should be to work in partnership with the authorised regulators, leaving them with the responsibilityfor day to day regulation. The Legal Services Board should exercise its powers only where approved regulators are clearly failing””." The wording of the amendment flows from that initial view of the Joint Committee, subsequently endorsed by the Government in their response. Behind the amendment is the fact that the Bill appears to say nothing about the way in which the Legal Services Board should approach its task. But from what the Government have been saying about the Bill as we have moved towards the parliamentary stage, it seems clear—to me, at any rate—that the existing professional bodies should act as the frontline regulators and the Legal Services Board should act in a supervisory role, intervening only if it believes that a frontline regulator is failing in some way or another to fulfil its task. The amendment seeks to reflect that in the Bill. In the absence of this amendment, or one like it, in our view the Bill will fail to reflect the balance that the Government say they want to achieve betweenthe frontline regulator doing the hands-on work and the Legal Services Board acting in an overseeing role, intervening only when the frontline regulator fails to fulfil its task. I readily accept that the noble Baroness may feel that an amendment differently worded would better reflect the balance of power between the Legal Services Board and the frontline regulators. I should be perfectly happy to consider—indeed, I would probably accept—any such amendment. I am extremely anxious to hear from the noble Baroness, first, whether she agrees with my interpretation of the relationship between the two and, secondly, whether she is prepared to endorse what the Government said in their response to the Joint Committee or some other form of words which would equally reflect the Government’s response. I beg to move.