Legal Services Bill [Lords]

I totally accept that, but when we last debated the subject on Report, the hon. Gentleman said, when referring to the certification officer:"““I have some criticisms about the system's lack of teeth””.—[Official Report, 15 October 2007; Vol. 464, c. 610.]" I agree with him, and we should review that. Furthermore, it must be highlighted once again that under the amendment it will still be up to the unions to determine who is classed as a member, and therefore to whom they can extend reserved legal activities without needing to be licensed under part 5. That still creates the proven possibility of unions bringing in non-connected associate members and providing a poor service to them. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline how the Lord Chancellor would consult on what are the ““relevant services””. In particular, would that need to be confirmed in a statutory instrument? The Government should be aware that the provision, together with the role of the certification officer, represents unfinished business. The compromise reached remains far from ideal, even though we accept that the Government have made a dramatic concession on the issue. The exemption would be limited to the relevant activities of the union members, but what does that mean? How would that be regulated by the Lord Chancellor? On this matter of principle, we are not yet satisfied, and we will press the amendment to a Division.