Legal Services Bill [HL]

I am grateful to both noble Lords for raising this issue. As ever, I shall look at the wording to see whether we have it exactly right. The word ““prejudiced”” is an appropriate word. We seek to ensure that the regulatory arm is aware of the influences placed on it; in other words, the representative arm will not necessarily do anything other than quite reasonably and quite rightly lobby on particular issues and do things that are designed to take forward the representative functions. I have no difficulty with that at all. The issue for me is how the regulatory arm knows that it has been influenced. I suggest the onus is on those who are being influenced to know that they have been influenced. We have chosen that word because it is not about improper behaviour at all; it is about asking, ““Do you know that you have been influenced and are you aware of the fact that, with two arms, one is operating on the other?””. That is why ““prejudiced”” is used; it does not suggest that something untoward has happened. Members of the Committee will recognise that on occasions one is lobbied by people one knows well on issues with which one is familiar. When looking at regulation, you have to be clear that you know you have been influenced and can justify its nature. That is the way I have approached the matter. I am happy to look again at the wording of the provision, but I do not particularly like that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. It suggests something untoward, which is not what this is about. It is about asking, ““Are you conscious that you have been influenced in a way that might effect what you decide to do?””. That is what I am seeking to achieve.