Legal Services Bill [HL]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. With regard to Schedule 4, I know that the Association of Law Costs Draftsmen Ltd, which is currently going through the Courts and Legal Services Act procedure, has expressed interest in regulating probate, as has the Council for Licensed Conveyancers. There may be others, but those are the two that I know of. I do not have an estimate ofthe number of likely applications, but I shall consult the department and write to the noble Lord about that. However, the two bodies that I have mentioned are good examples of the kind of organisation that may well take part in this work. I referred to the position in Scotland when we discussed that part of the Bill, and I responded to points raised by, I believe, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, who almost inevitably raises issues concerning Scotland. The noble Lord is right to point out that the position there is different. I said that I will think very carefully about the question of independence. I think that I also said that my noble and learned friend, in particular, felt that the relationship with the Lord Chief Justice—although he may well wish to consult him, he did not wish to see that process in the Bill—was clear and consistent with government policy, and I do not envisage a change in that. But I said that I would look at the question of independence in that context and I shall do so. I hope that that gives the noble Lord the answers that he seeks. Schedule 4 agreed to. Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to. Schedule 5 agreed to. Clauses 22 to 25 agreed to. Schedule 6 agreed to. Clause 26 agreed to. Clause 27 [Approved regulator’s duty to promote the regulatory objectives etc]: [Amendment No. 43 not moved.] Clause 27 agreed to. Clause 28 [Prohibition on the Board interfering with representative functions]: