Legal Services Bill [HL]

My Lords, although it is essential, as the noble Lord will recognise, that the board can discharge its regulatory duties effectively, it is equally important that there is an opportunity to contest the board’s decision where it has acted illegally, improperly or otherwise irrationally. Other than in the case of the board’s power to fine, for which separate provision is made in the Bill as noble Lords will know, I believe that judicial review is the correct remedy in these instances. I have consistently made it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and to your Lordships’ House that, as a public body, the decisions of the board and those of the OLC and the approved regulators will be subject to judicial review. My concern with the noble Lord’s amendment is that by setting out in the Bill that judicial review is available on, "““Administrative decisions made in implementation ofthis Act””," we could create uncertainty—I have taken good legal advice on this—as it is unclear where the boundaries lie that separate administrative decisions that are taken in implementing the Act and other administrative decisions taken by the board and the approved regulators, who may run and take the risk of inadvertently narrowing the court’s discretion. It is therefore very important that judicial review is available but is not constrained, as unfortunately it would be if the amendment were accepted. Clause 7 is an important clause that allows the board to carry out functions that are in effect ancillary to the conduct of its principal regulatory functions. It is about contractual arrangements for staffing, IT, procurement and so on, and if we took it out, we could reduce the board’s ability to discharge its duties. It is a standard provision. I could cite a number of Acts in which noble Lords will find it: the Access to Justice Act 1999, the Communications Act 2003, the Energy Act 2004, the Enterprise Act 2002 and the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004. It does not mean that the board can do anything that it feels like; it is about ancillary functions of the kind that I have identified which it may wish to carry out. I hope that the noble Lord will feel reassured that judicial review is available in the way I suggested, and that his amendment would constrain its ability to use it in a way that I am sure he would not wish.