---

Legal Services Bill [HL]

I shall try to deal with the points that have been raised. My noble friend Lord Whitty raised a fundamental question about the effect of providing for appeal structures. When I was taking legislation on education through your Lordships' House, I remember that we often debated whether the opportunity to have every possible decision reviewed by an appeals body had a detrimental effect on the regulatory body. We agreed that it was therefore important to be clear about the processes involved, as we have sought to be in this legislation. I have already indicated the appropriate role for judicial review in the context of public bodies. I shall also explain financial penalties when we come to the next group of amendments. For the purposes of addressing this amendment, I shall restate our position on public censure. We have been very clear in saying that there should not be a general need for appeals from decisions of the board, subject to the exception that I have made for financial penalties, and I shall spell out three reasons why. First, the board will be independent in its composition and decision-making, which is of great importance. Secondly, there are statutory safeguards in the Bill to ensure that fair and transparent procedures must at all times be followed if the board sees fit to sanction an approved regulator. Clause 35 provides that the board may not publish a statement to censure an approved regulator unless it has first given notice to the regulator and considered representations. The clause also provides that where the board proposes to publish a statement, it must allow a period of 28 days or more to allow the approved regulator to make representations. That deals with the understandable concern raised through Amendment No. 57 to ensure that there is time for representations to be made in response. We have allowed for 28 days, which is considerably longer than seven days. Thirdly, for the reasons that I have already indicated, recourse to judicial review will be available in appropriate cases, ensuring that the board may be held to account without the need for a separate appeals procedure. A statement of public censure will be made only where the board considers it appropriate to do so and has followed the prescribed procedure set out in Clause 35. If it publishes a statement where it is unreasonable to do so, or without due regard for the procedural rights of approved regulators, it may be held liable in the courts. To provide for a statutory right of appeal would be unnecessary for those reasons. I hope that noble Lords will reflect on the way in which I have set out my response. Clause 79 is about alternative business structures. It enables those bodies that wish to be designated as a licensing authority to comply, because they will need to have an appeals body in place. Its aims are quite different and distinct, and it will be extremely helpful. We shall debate it in due course. I mention it now because it is important to make the distinction. Reading the provisions out of its context might give rise to concerns that can be allayed when we get to that part.