Legal Services Bill [HL]

I can only say to the noble Lord what I have already said. I am not minded to look at adding new words into the Bill that require us to leap through another set of hurdles for the Legal Services Board to achieve its objectives. The Bill is very clear about the framework within which the board should operate. It is clear that it is subject to judicial review if the circumstances so warrant. It is clear, as I have already said, that it has to think about the regulatory objectives and consider the impact. I am very concerned not to lose the ability of the board to think about a regulator having an impact by what it does on a small number of people in very particular circumstances, or on one objective in a very particular way, and we believe the board may wish to say, ““Taking everything into consideration, we none the less feel this is important””. The more that we add in ““serious”” or ““substantial””, it begins to feel like an opportunity to stop the board from being able to exercise the kind of diligence that I would expect. If one considers the strength of feeling by other consumer organisations about ensuring that we have a proper, strong regulatory framework, balanced by all the things I have already said, noble Lords will understand my reluctance to start adding in adjectives that could make a different determination for the board.