Legal Services Bill [HL]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord for three things: first, for having taken the trouble and time—he is very heavily committed on this Bill so he will have had a great deal else to do—to consider the issue and to discuss it with those whom he has mentioned. I entirely share his view on the work that they have done and I, too, pay tribute toMr Robin Knowles and others. Secondly, I thank him, as a result, for having withdrawn his previous amendment and tabled one focused on the point that he identified. Thirdly, I thank him for the very generous remarks he made at the end of his speech moving the amendment. I very much appreciate what he said. I declare my interests, as I did responding to the amendments in Committee, both as president—it carries no executive responsibility—of the Bar Pro Bono Unit and as chairman of the Attorney-General’s National Pro Bono Co-Ordinating Committee. I repeat those declarations. I also thank my noble friend for allowing me the opportunity to propose what I regard as this important, if small, amendment to the Bill. I am grateful for the overall support that it has been given by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. As he knows and has explained, the structure of the single charity envisaged under the clause was the subject of study by a working party set up under the auspices of the co-ordinating committee to which I referred. The membership of that working party was drawn from across the profession and the working sector. The report of the working party was fully endorsed by the full co-ordinating committee. I know that the noble Lord has seen that report. The report contemplates that among the factors to which the single prescribed charity would have regard—probably through principles rather than as a constitutional fetter—when making decisions about distribution of money received, would be any expression of preference by the legal representatives who have acted pro bono. The report emphasises that such expression of preference could not be determinative, otherwise much of the advantage of strategic perspective that the use of a single prescribed charity offers would be lost. Those who wish to express a preference would be free to do so. I can see that proper regard to such expressions of preference would be helpful in ensuring confidence in the use of the prescribed charity. But, again, as the working party report emphasises, there must be a balance between having regard to preferences expressed and ensuring fair and strategic disbursement. It is intended that the single charity, which is referred to and which will be prescribed under Clause 185, will have the feature that I have just described. I hope that the noble Lord will take the view that that is sufficient to meet his concerns, without his amendment being moved. He will not be surprised to hear that I would have some difficulties with the amendment as it stands. For example, it identifies only one factor and does not mention that the charity can have regard to the others. That always creates a difficulty in the statute—there are others, but I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has taken my point. Without, I hope, adding any sour note to what has been a constructive discussion, I do not share the view expressed by some to the noble Lord, that the enthusiasm of those who do pro bono work will be dampened by thinking that money might not go to their favourite or prescribed charity. I have confidence in them, have had the privilege of seeing them at work and know that they do that work because they want to help those people who receive legal advice and assistance. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment. I note that, since I spoke to the associated amendment in Committee, the Department for Constitutional Affairs has issued a consultation paper on the clause which invites comments on all aspects of the clause’s implementation. I hope that that will result in constructive suggestions from many quarters.