Legal Services Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am, as always, most grateful to the Minister for her explanation, the core of which suggested that having made this initial undertaking on 22 January, which was when the debate on Amendment No. 38 took place, she went away and discussed the matter with her team and on mature reflection decided that the amendment was not only unnecessary but would push the balance too far in the other direction. In other words, the practitioner would have had a stronger hand to play, once the act was implemented, than the consumer. The difficulty about that argument is the statement that I read out to your Lordships: "““I remind noble Lords that we have already accepted Amendment No. 38””.—[Official Report, 21/2/07; col. 1117.]" That was said more than a month after the debate on the amendment, which took place on 22 January. The commitment that the Minister gave the Committee about Amendment No. 38 was given at least five weeks after the debate, so quite a long period of reflection had taken place; five weeks after ourdebate on the amendment, she still felt completely committed to it. The substance of this issue is secondary to the constitutional convention. What matters is thatthe undertaking was given unequivocally to your Lordships’ House. I am really disappointed that any Government could resile from such a clear-cut undertaking. I am not going to press this amendment because I believe that the Government ought to be ashamed of themselves. When they conclude that they are and this Bill has been to the Commons, I am confident that by the time it comes back to the Lords we will find this amendment in it. We do not needto vote on this matter. The convention ought tobe strong enough. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 64 [Modification of the Board's functions under section 62(1)(b)]: