---

Legal Services Bill [HL]

I suppose that one could begin with the definition of ““public censure””. If one took the extreme view, which the noble Lord has put very well, and said, ““In these circumstances, this would happen””, then the board, within its 28 days, would make representations to the LSB and would consider whether it wished to apply for judicial review if it felt that the circumstances warranted it. But we have to start from the principle that the LSB would only ever use that power when it was clearly a proportionate and appropriate measure to take and where it was doing so because it felt that the circumstances warranted it. In such a situation, that option would have to be available to the board. I understand what the noble Lord says but I would argue that there could be gradations of public censure. Noble Lords will recognise that there are circumstances in which organisations are rapped across the knuckles in different ways. It is not always necessary for the organisation’s chairman to resign; public censure is used in all sorts of circumstances. It is not a clear-cut issue, but we have identified the one area of penalty where we think that it is right and proper for such censure to be automatic. However, the public body would be treated appropriately, and we are ensuring that the powers are used appropriately. If the regulator could demonstrate, by leave to the court, that there were grounds that warranted review it would be available. We think that that is the right balance. To open up a statutory right of appeal is to change the nature of the regulator and in a sense to enable a supra-regulator to be on top.