Legal Services Bill [Lords]

I can tell the House that, between now and the Bill going to the Lords, I will do my best to speak to my colleagues to find out whether we can discuss further the possibility of that type of appointment. On Government amendment No. 80, it is important that removals are made in accordance and consistent with the terms and conditions of appointment. It is under those conditions that the board, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, can remove members of the consumer panel. The Bill makes no express provision in that respect, because it is for the board to decide, but if we are to require the Lord Chancellor's approval for appointments, it follows that we also need his approval for removals. We needed to put that in the Bill to cover the period of appointment. It is normal practice for appointments to bodies such as the consumer panel to be for fixed periods. The amendments allow members to be reappointed, or to be removed either because the board chooses not to reappoint them or because it actively removes a member in accordance with those terms and conditions. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) rightly mentioned narrow sectional interests, but it seems to me that his arguments—saying that it would be right to have a lay chair, but then supporting the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor—are entirely contradictory. Incidentally, I understand that there is no legal difference between approval and concurrence, so he will be pleased to know that his amendment would have been just as appropriate in that respect. However, if he agrees with us that consumer confidence requires that the chair always be a layperson, he must see that the logic of that would be undermined by requiring the agreement of the Lord Chancellor to the appointment.