Legal Services Bill [Lords]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The essence of the Bill, and the concern of the Opposition, is that any regulation which the hon. Gentleman might call robust is not so overbearing that it gets in the way and undermines the confidence of clients such as those whom I have represented in their battles with the state. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would be on their side, and they would not want a regulatory body under the influence of an overbearing state. During the debate, references to the legal profession have conveyed the assumption, implied or explicit, that there is some overarching conflict of interest between lawyers and consumers. The Minister seemed to be pitting consumers against the legal profession. One should rise above that kind of debate. The Joint Committee was well served by lawyers, but in the limited time available had extensive consultation with consumer groups and the like. I hope not to make the same easy mistake. The essence of the Bill, for consumers and lawyers alike, is independence and trust in public authorities, Ministers and politicians. When Ministers give assurances about independence, they should take heed of the latest opinion survey. On trustworthiness, Ministers were rated just above car salesmen, and lawyers were more highly rated than Ministers. It is worth noting that when one listens to what some lawyers say. The theme of my remarks and of many representations is independence, which takes many forms. Provisions to safeguard independence were inserted in the Bill after strong representations from the Joint Committee. That raises suspicions in my mind and in the mind of others that the Government have begrudgingly recognised independence as the mark of the legal profession in our society. It is important that the legal services board should be demonstrably independent of Government. That matters less for lawyers than for the public. It also matters for professional confidence in the regulation of legal services.