Legal Services Bill [HL]

I agree with the noble and learned Lord. Given that this is about members of the legal profession taking an opportunity presented to them that is supported, not only by the consumer lobby, but elsewhere in the professions, we are providing choice for them—choice to develop partnerships, choice to work in conjunction in different ways, retaining their professional responsibilities and upholding their standards and so on, and their desire to provide a high-quality competitive service to their clients. We would agree with all of that. It is an opportunity, nothing more; we are not forcing anyone to do anything. It is an opportunity for new forms of business to develop; but that can happen only when we have got the rules right, when we have licensed people appropriately, when we have clarified matters, as I have promised, to ensure that the devastating effect on access to justice described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, does not arise—that simply could not happen—and when we have looked again at how the Legal Services Board might review what has happened. This is potentially an exciting proposition that is largely welcomed outside your Lordships’ House. My job is to allay the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and others who worry in principle that somehow this is a bad change. They are concerned about loss of linkage between the individual solicitor and the client and they are concerned about cherry picking. They want to ensure that those concerns are dealt with appropriately. Equally, I wish to address the slightly different concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in this context and those of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in relation to the previous group of amendments. They say that while they do not oppose the idea, they oppose anything that is not thought through properly and does not incorporate the stages that would make a difference. I am not opposed to that. I have to say to my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours that I am opposed to piloting, because I do not think that it works. I am opposed to incremental stages because that approach does not work. I cannot think of a way in which it could be done without there being all sorts of difficulties. However, I am absolutely certain that we have to get this right. My job is to demonstrate that we have thought the issue through further or to demonstrate that adequate provisions are already in the Bill. If I can do that, I hope that people will be genuinely excited that this could be an opportunity to develop services.