Legal Services Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 12: 12: Schedule 1, page 112, line 14, at end insert— ““(4) An order made under sub-paragraph (3) is subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, AmendmentNo. 12 deals with the powers of the Lord Chancellor in paragraph 1(3) to determine the size of the Legal Services Board. In particular, the paragraph states: "““The Lord Chancellor may by order amend sub-paragraph (1) by substituting for the limit on the maximum number of persons for the time being specified in paragraph (c) of that sub-paragraph a different limit””." Some of your Lordships may recall that this matter was raised on the first day of Committee. I raised it to express my concern about the scope that the wording of the provision might give to the Secretary of State, now the Lord Chancellor, for manipulating the size of the board, perhaps for malign purposes. In response, the Minister was exceedingly anxious to reassure me that the purpose of the provision was entirely benign; that there might be occasions in the future when it would be necessary to grant the Legal Services Board a wider range of functions. In that context the board would need to be supplemented by one or more individuals. I apologise to the House for quoting the noble Baroness at some length, but it is germane to the point that I wish to tease out. She said: "““The issue that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, raises is that the Lord Chancellor may be able to sneak something under the wire by negative procedure””." The power to expand the board in Schedule 1 is by negative resolution. She continued: "““One way in which to address his concerns would be for me to take the matter away to allow us to make it an affirmative rather than negative resolution. That would mean that, if the numbers were to be expanded, it would have to come through a debate in this Chamber and another place, so nothing could be done that would suggest that the Secretary of State was trying to increase the numbers for other reasons. The noble Lord also has the knowledge of my remarks, which are in Hansard, about the purposes to which the provision will be put. If there were other purposes, the Minister—whether it was me or another Minister—would have to explain in full detail to this Chamber and in another place precisely what was being done and why””.—[Official Report, 9/1/07; col. 163.]" So, at the suggestion of the noble Baroness, I have tabled my amendment for an affirmative resolution, which I invite her to support. I beg to move.