Legal Services Bill [HL]

As ever I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. I want to make just a few observations in response. First, I would be very happy if, at some point between now and Report, she could conduct an analysis of the difference between the legal profession and the accountancy profession in the context of the appropriate share of the costs that should be borne by the public sector. Secondly, the scale of the start-up costs as estimated today vastly exceeds the scale that the Government thought would be the case when the Bill was in its early stages of drafting. I believe that the amount we are talking about has increased almost threefold. I submit to the noble Baroness that that ought to influence her approach to the question of sharing at least a part of the costs of the start-up. Thirdly, the responsibilities of the Legal Services Board are not limited simply to disciplining miscreant behaviour in the professions. They concern much wider issues than that. Access to justice, as a number of noble Lords have observed, is one of the objectives. That is an objective very much in the realm of public policy. The licensing of the new business structures under Part 5, again, has nothing whatsoever to do with the disciplining of individual members of the profession. These are matters of public policy pursued in the public interest by the Legal Services Board. Why on earth should the professions be required to fund them? The noble Baroness really must come up with some good answers on Report if she is going to persist with the current financial structure. Finally, there is the question of whether ““proportionate”” should be added to ““fair””. I believe that the case for this is strong, and not just because it was looked at very carefully by the Joint Committee. Fairness is a value judgment. For example, it might be concluded by the Legal Services Board that although the contribution of one approved regulator to the overall costs of regulation was very low, because that regulator had a deep pocket it would be only fair that it be required to pay a disproportionately large amount towards the levy. That is why ““proportionate”” provides the guarantee that I believe each approved regulator ought to have; namely, that it will pay no more than the costs incurred for its regulation. ““Proportionate”” is crucial to the whole structure of the Government’s levy system. I shall be able to pursue the question of public interest further when I move Amendment No. 142B. Therefore, in those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 166 [The levy]: [Amendments Nos. 140 and 141 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.] [Amendment No. 141A not moved.] [Amendment No. 142 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]