Legal Services Bill [HL]

I have not for one second implied that. I said that we believe that, when looking at what is occurring, the board will look at the regulatory objectives. It will look at the impact of what has happened and make a judgment. That is what it is for. That is what we have set it up to do. It can say, ““In the circumstances, we believe that action is required around this particular objective having been breached””, having failed, there having been an omission or whatever. I have already indicated that one would hope that many of these issues are dealt with long before we get to that point, by dialogue and so forth, but they may occur. What matters is that we look at this case by case. In a particular set of circumstances, it is right and proper that the failure of one of the objectives requires action. It is not about ranking or anything other than the particular circumstances that exist. I accept the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, began. Of course, the regulatory objectives as a whole are important. But it is quite clear that there could be a failure in one area that the board deems to be important. I will come to ““significant””, which I will not accept on the face of the Bill, but I do accept the principle behind the board looking to see what has occurred in each case. We think that that is completely reasonable. To tie the hands of the board any further would be wrong. I have made it clear that I will look and make sure that that reflection is as the Bill currently stands, and if it is not, I will be in touch with the Committee to discuss the matter.