division_name: Legal Services Bill [ Lords] (Programme) (No. 3) &#8212; Clause 49 &#8212; The Board's policy statements
motion: <p class="" pid="b.306.3/1" pwmotiontext="yes">I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment and proposes Government amendment (a) in lieu.</p>
  
  <p class="" pid="b.306.3/2" pwmotiontext="yes">Hon. Members may recall that when we discussed the issue of the board's policy statements in Committee we were broadly in agreement with the amendments made in the other place, but we were not able to accept the requirement for a policy statement to ensure that the board would not act unless satisfied that the act or omission of the approved regulator was not an approach it could reasonably have taken, because that could have restricted the board from taking action in appropriate circumstances.</p>
  
  <p class="" pid="b.307.0/1" pwmotiontext="yes">I beg to move, That this House does not insist on the Commons amendments to which the Lords have disagreed, and proposes Government amendments (a) to (l) in lieu.</p>
  
  <p class="" pid="b.307.0/2" pwmotiontext="yes">Hon. Members will know that my noble Friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath recognised in his opening speech that the issue is important and it has been the subject of a great deal of scrutiny and debate at almost every stage of the Bill's passage. Some will argue that we should go further in respect of concurrence. Reflecting on the points made in earlier debates, it is clear to me that there is genuine concern about what consultation with the Lord Chief Justice might involve. That is why my noble Friend was at pains to set out the detail of how it would work. He confirmed that I had written to the Lord Chief Justice to consult him on the process we are undertaking for the appointment of the chair of the board, and he said that I would write again shortly with respect to other members of the board, which is absolutely the case.</p>
  
  <p pid="b.310.1/1" pwmotiontext="yes"><i> Question put, </i>That this House does not insist on the Commons amendments to which the Lords have disagreed, and proposes Government amendments (a) to (l) in lieu:&#8212;</p>
  
  <p pid="b.310.1/2" pwmotiontext="yes"><i> The House divided:</i> Ayes 277, Noes 50.</p>