Legal Services Bill [Lords]

There were not many. I accept that the majority were lawyers—I was not on the Committee—I was making the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley, who comes from a non-legal background, was one of those who were not lawyers. That was important. I also pay tribute to those of my colleagues who did the burden of the work in the other place. Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Maclennan of Rogart bore the brunt of the heat of the debate that started in the Lords almost six months ago to the day. That was not too long a period, and I am extremely grateful that the Bill did start in the Lords. The Lords did a fantastic amount of work on it, and as the Minister said in answer to one of my interventions, the work done with her noble Friend Baroness Ashton, who was very helpful, in the end produced an agreement to amend the Bill. Many of the Joint Committee’s recommendations were accepted, and I pay tribute to colleagues who worked to make sure than the Bill is much better than when it started. After almost six months in the Lords, the general conclusion—everybody seems to have said this—was that it was considerably improved by the amendments made there. [Interruption.] There are remaining objections to certain significant changes. The Minister rather cleverly avoided a direct answer to my earlier intended direct question. Where there were votes in the Lords and the Government were defeated—according to my calculations, there were seven of those—we Liberal Democrats and, I think, the Conservatives, by and large, believe that the Lords made the right decision. Such amendments were sometimes proposed by independent, Cross-Bench Members of the Lords, sometimes by Conservatives and sometimes by Liberal Democrats, and they were all moves in the right direction. That such proposals were indeed right is confirmed to me by the phrases used by Lord Hunt of Wirral, who supported and voted for either all or many of them. For example, he said the following on Second Reading about the alternative business structures proposal:"““There are widespread worries about conflicts of interest, which will—not may—be created if Ministers press ahead with the ABS reforms. Sir David drew attention to that concern in his report, as did the Joint Select Committee that I chaired, which was unanimous in its report. The provisions in the Bill are very weak and will have to be strengthened considerably, but that will be a matter for Committee stage.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 December 2006; Vol. 687, c. 1181.]" On Third Reading, where the Lords supported an amendment providing a sunrise clause and other provisions for ABSs, Lord Hunt said:"““My Lords, I should explain how strongly I support Amendments Nos. 3 and 13. It was the unanimous view of the Select Committee that amendments should be tabled,""‘to ensure that the impact of ABSs on access to justice, particularly in rural areas, informs the decision-making process for licensing an ABS firm’.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 May 2007; Vol. 692, c. 140.]" So there was clear support, on the basis of argument, for the amendments on which the Government were defeated. We should work on the basis that that is the right starting place, and that the burden is on the Government to make the case for any changes. I am troubled that the Minister appears in most cases to be rejecting such amendments completely, and in one or two cases to be saying that she will reject them at least in part. I hope that there will be a debate on that, and that we can win the argument. If we do, I hope that the Government will be flexible and will not stubbornly hold on to a position that clearly did not win the confidence of the other place.