Legal Services Bill [HL]

moved AmendmentNo. 39: 39: Clause 7, leave out Clause 7 The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am reported as having moved this amendment at the end of the first day on Report, but I did not do so. For clarification, I would like to put the record straight. It is reported at col. 109 that the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, moved one of my amendments, on judicial review, but she did not. It was reported that the amendment that she moved, which was my amendment, was approved. It was not. It is important that I should clarify the situation. I opened on the judicial review amendment and not on the amendment to leave out Clause 7. It was getting late and I am not sure what happened, but the Minister spoke to both amendments. I am very glad that she did, because it will save a lot of time today. I accept much of what she said. What she said on the judicial review amendment, which I totally accept, was that she had taken good legal advice and that there was a risk of, "““inadvertently narrowing the court’s discretion?." The problem was with the inclusion of the word ““administrative? in relation to decisions. If the noble Baroness is prepared at Third Reading to move the amendment without the word ““administrative?, I will be delighted. If she does not wish to do so, I shall do so myself. The noble Baroness said that Clause 7 was, "““an important clause that allows the board to carry out functions that are in effect ancillary to the conduct of its principal regulatory functions?," and that leaving it out, "““could reduce the board’s ability to discharge its duties?." Then she said: "““It is a standard provision?.—[Official Report, 16/4/07;col. 110.]" In view of what she said, I should be content to propose at Third Reading merely to add a qualification to Clause 7. As drafted, it states: "““The Board may do anything calculated to facilitate, or incidental or conductive to, the carrying out of any of its functions?." I would add the qualification, ““which are in effect ancillary to the performance of its principal regulatory functions?. That disposes of that. I have one last point. It is said that the clause is in standard form. However, it is far too widely drafted. If it has been picked out of the pigeonhole of the draftsman’s formal amendments, it should not be carried into this Bill without qualification. I beg to move.