Legal Services Bill [HL]

The exchanges between the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, have raised an issue that I must confess I had not considered when I tabled the amendment. I hope that it is a matter on which the noble Baroness will reflect between now and Report. For our part, unlike in many of our amendments, we have no fixed view about what this sum ought to be. My main reason for tabling the amendment was to ensure that the views of the Joint Committee were brought before noble Lords to enable the noble Baroness to give an explanation for the particular figure that the Government have chosen to put into the Bill. However, the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, that, in the case of the financial services sector, the ombudsman scheme is plainly considered to be an alternative route to the courts highlights an important new dimension to the debate. We hope that, at least before Report, the noble Baroness will have made up the Government’s mind as to whether this scheme is meant to mirror the intentions that lay behind the financial services scheme or whether it is quite distinct and more along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Clearly, the scale of the figure included in the Bill will be influenced by the underlying intentions of the Government. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 134AA and 134AB not moved.] Clause 135 agreed to. Clause 136 [Alteration of limit]: [Amendment No. 134B not moved.] Clause 136 agreed to. Clause 137 [Acceptance or rejection of determination]: