Legal Services Bill [HL]

I will briefly add to what has just been said. The ““adverse impact”” test for trigger for intervention is a very loose phrase. It is far more important, as far as many on these Benches are concerned, to have that test properly defined as against the kind of phrase that featured in the last group of amendments. What about ““substantial””? It was not generally welcomed on Second Reading, but I remind the Minister that in the Corporate Manslaughter Bill, which is presently going through this House, the word ““substantial”” is expressly used to determine criminal liability fit for a jury to decide. Why not ““substantial”” or ““serious”” in this context? This is not a semantic quibble; it is a desire to have the national and international reaction to this Bill, in this context, see that there are serious hurdles before you can intervene.