Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

My Lords, in the interests of life, liberty and the pursuit of nourishment, I will be uncharacteristically brief in moving these amendments which relate to Clause 10 and the qualifications for civil legal aid. Amendment 93 seeks to delete subsection (4): "““In setting the criteria, the Lord Chancellor must seek to secure that, in cases in which there is more than one description of service that could be provided for an individual, the individual qualifies under this Part for the service which in all the circumstances is the most appropriate having regard to the criteria””." What that means and how significant it is escapes me. Perhaps in replying the noble Lord, Lord McNally, could amplify the meaning of it. In addition, another curious subsection states: "““The criteria must reflect the principle that, in many disputes, mediation and other forms of dispute resolution are more appropriate than legal proceedings””." It may be a fact but it can hardly be a principle—but that may be me being pedantic again. I have already been rebuked by my noble friend Lord Bach for correcting his use of the word ““decimate””. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, may wish to rebuke me in this context. Amendment 95 is simply designed to ensure that, if regulations are made, draft regulations should be laid before and approved by an affirmative resolution in each House of Parliament. We have had this amendment moved in respect of other regulations. It seems appropriate in this case that we should follow that course. I beg to move.