Legal Services Bill [HL]

I was reading some of the comments of my honourable friend Bridget Prentice when she appeared before the Select Committee. She was keen to get rid of overused words such as ““light touch””. Certainly, in my experience over many years, ““partnership”” is another of those words that are difficult to define. We all know what we mean, but if we are to include it in the legislation as a duty on the Legal Services Board, we have to be very clear about what we mean. I say at the outset that I completely accept the principle that says, ““We are creating a regulatory regime in which different people perform different functions and work cohesively together””. In a sense, that is one definition of ““partnership””. I have no objection to being very clear that we want the Legal Services Board and the frontline regulators, if they do not mind me calling them that, to be able to work together consistently. We have had some very useful discussions—for example, yesterday with the Law Society—about how rules are dealt with, which I am keen to pursue. I intend to talk to colleagues about that this week. In principle, I have no objection to this at all. I am not keen to put a duty of partnership on the Legal Services Board without a clear definition of what we mean. The noble Lord, Lord Neill, has raised an additional problem that we would have to think about. But I cannot accept the amendment, and I hope that the noble Lord will not refer again to things I do when I should not do them, as I will end up with no job if I am not careful. Perhaps we can try to be explicit about what we mean, which may be more about what I say rather than what we put in to the Bill, to be fair. We have no difficulties about putting out some specific points. I have said to the leadership in the professions, particularly in the Law Society and the Bar Council, although not exclusively to them, that I am very keen and happy for useful things to be said during the passage of the Bill so that matters can be made clear, although we cannot include them in the Bill as they would change the legislation. I hope we can have those discussions so we can be sure that we have clarified matters. I agree with the principle of working together in a regulatory regime and of ensuring that the Legal Services Board works effectively with those organisations. But I am not sure about a duty of partnership in statute, because I think that that is different. I am keen to make matters as clear as possible and to consider other options, especially for the future.