Legal Services Bill [HL]

I am grateful to the Minister for her response, and can see that Clause 88 is, in practice, intended only to comprehend those who exert real influence over a firm’s decision-making. In the normal course of activities, that would exclude the example I gave in my opening remarks. Once again, however, that is not clear in the Bill. It therefore seems that there is discretion under the Bill for somebody who does not exert such influence to be caught by Clause 88 nevertheless. I find it difficult to see how, for example, in a judicial review, a court would conclude that targeting such a person was, in the wording and context of Clause 88, irrational. That is the City of London Law Society’s concern. I respectfully suggest that the Minister add this to the long list of matters she already has to reflect upon between Committee and Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 108E and 108F not moved.] Clauses 88 to 100 agreed to. Schedule 14 agreed to. Clauses 101 to 103 agreed to. [Amendment No. 108FA not moved.] Clauses 104 and 105 agreed to. Clause 106 [““Low risk body””]: [Amendments Nos. 108FB to 108FE not moved.] Clause 106 agreed to. Clause 107 [Foreign bodies]: [Amendment No. 108G not moved.] Clause 107 agreed to.