---

Legal Services Bill [HL]

We support the amendment in principle, but it is encapsulated in my Amendment No. 65, which we shall reach later, where I seek an assurance from the Minister that judicial review is available, not just for the question of public censure, but for the imposition of directions, performance targets and financial penalties. This amendment only restates what is available by way of judicial review, because the grounds of appeal are that the decision was either unlawful, ultra vires, or manifestly unreasonable. Any of those grounds would give rise to a successful application for judicial review. The amendment suggests that the first remedy available on judicial review should be the quashing of the decision, or varying the terms of the statement; perhaps the High Court may not dictate what a statement should be, but it can indicate in its judgment what is or is not acceptable. Although I support the principle of this amendment, I hope that, in the event, the Minister will accept Amendment No. 65, which would make this unnecessary. It would have wider implications, and I shall address it in due course.