Legal Services Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 1: 1: After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause— ““Professional representations Section 10 shall apply mutatis mutandis to representations by approved regulators whether in their regulatory or representative capacity.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendmentis identical to Amendment No. 38 which we tabledin Committee. As noble Lords are aware, the Legal Services Bill establishes, among other institutions, a Consumer Panel, which is entitled both to make representations and to be consulted. Contrary to the structure in the Financial Services Act, however, there is no equivalent practitioners’ panel. Accordingly in Committee we tabled Amendment No. 38, which was in identical terms to the amendment before your Lordships today. It was clear from our debate in Committee that the Minister accepted this amendment, either in terms or in equivalent terms. I turn to what she said in Hansard: "““I remind noble Lords that we have already accepted Amendment No. 38 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, which required that Clause 10 will apply mutatis mutandis to representations by proposed regulators, whether in the regulatory or representative capacities””.—[Official Report, 21/2/07; col. 1117.]" On Report, however, the Minister was not prepared to honour that undertaking. I am not suggesting that she behaved in any way reprehensibly—I suspect that others gave her very strict riding instructions—but the undertaking is there, and it is unequivocal. Others of your Lordships, such as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, have withdrawn amendments that they might otherwise have pressed to a vote because of that undertaking. I suggest to the Minister, as I did on Report, that there is a clear convention in your Lordships’ House that having made such a statement, whether she regrets it or not on reflection, the Minister must accept it. I beg to move.