Legal Services Bill [HL]

My Lords, I have some knowledge of the procedures, but not sufficient to compete in every detail with the noble and learned Lord. I know of no circumstances in which a government lawyer has appealed to the Law Society for any support where there has been a conflict between themselves and the Minister. I do know, however, that the Government have insisted, throughout the Bill, not only on realities but on perceptions. The Government have always said that even if there is no danger, in respect of some danger that we have said does not exist, we have to be crystal clear in the Bill because there may be a perception of danger. Even if the noble and learned Lord is right that the system in practice at the moment is watertight, nevertheless, I suggest, at least on behalf of the Law Society, that there is a perception that that is not so. There is a perception that government lawyers ought to be subject to similar regimes to other lawyers. In these circumstances and despite what I regard as the well intentioned and calmly presented arguments of the Government, I nevertheless wish to test the opinion of the House. On Question, Whether the said amendment(No. 614) shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 65. Clause 185 [Payments in respect of pro bono representation]: [Amendments Nos. 615 and 616 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]