Clause 36
Legal Services Bill [Lords]
5:15 pm
Henry Bellingham (Shadow Minister, Constitutional Affairs; North West Norfolk, Conservative)
I have papers that could allow me to prolong the debate for as much as an hour and a half, but the Labour Whip keeps making rude faces at me, so I shall do my level best to curtail the debate; I shall try to be succinct and to get the point across cogently yet effectively.
Amendment No. 247 makes it clear that the board should give notice to the approved regulator, saying that it has reached a decision and setting out how the statement should be published. Again, that is perhaps stating the obvious, but the amendment would also allow the approved regulator time to consider its response. In the interests of fairness, the amendment says that the Legal Services Board should not
“publish the statement until after the expiry of 7 days”.
That is what amendment No. 247 says and I very much hope that the Minister will see the logic and good sense of the amendment.
New clause 13 would give the right of appeal against public censure; very simply, the new clause makes it quite clear that there should be that right of appeal. It is plain to the Opposition that the Government intended that there should be measures in the Bill to provide for such an appeal. On the other hand, we have examined the Bill carefully and we have not seen that it offers that necessary level of protection to the public, or to anyone who might be censured, including any approved regulator. Therefore, having this new clause makes a great deal of sense.
I shall briefly address amendments Nos. 248 and 249. Very simply, amendment No. 248 inserts onpage 20, line 3:
“that the imposition of the penalty”
is unlawful
“on any ground that would give rise to a claim for judicial review.’.
Amendment No. 249 is consequential on that amendment. It would take out clause 39(7), which is basically an ouster clause. Subsection (7) says:
“Except as provided by this section, the validity of a penalty is not to be questioned by any legal proceedings whatever.”
To my mind, that is a straightforward ouster clause. There is a strong argument for judicial review. I will not repeat all the arguments that were made in the other place, but it seems to me that the amendment makes sense, is logical and is very much in line with what the Government are trying to do, which is to ensure that there is fair treatment for all concerned. I do not see how one could have that fair treatment unless we accept this amendment, which would allow the claim for judicial review.
Therefore I hope that the Minister will look carefully at what we have proposed. I have gone through these amendments as succinctly and as quickly as I can. On that basis, I beg to move the amendments.