Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Kingsland (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 23 January 2007. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Legal Services Bill [HL].


Legal Services Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 63: 63: Clause 38 , page 19, line 24, at end insert— ““( ) that the imposition of the penalty is unlawful on any ground that would give rise to a claim for judicial review.”” The noble Lord said: As I indicated at an earlier stage of our discussions, the lack of a statutory right of appeal against the board’s interventions in this part of the Bill is a major problem. Here, in respect of the power to fine, and exceptionally, a right of statutory review is granted in the Bill; but it appears to have been given rather grudgingly. As drafted, the right of appeal available to an approved regulator against a penalty under Clause 38 remains very limited. Provision is made by Clause 38(2) for an approved regulator to appeal to the High Court within 42 days to quash a penalty or otherwise on the grounds that its imposition, "““was not within the power of the Board under section 36””." This statutory review is combined with Clause 38(7), which provides: "““Except as provided by this section, the validity of a penalty is not to be questioned by any legal proceedings whatever””." Apart from any other defect, this ouster clause is of questionable compatibility with the human rights convention. Is it really the case that an approved regulator or licensed body that sought judicial review of a penalty after the expiry of 42 days, but within three months, would be held to be excluded from doing so? And would the grounds for statutory review of the penalty include any grounds on which judicial review could otherwise be sought? We have sought in Amendment No. 63 to include grounds for judicial review as one of the grounds for appeal under Clause 38(2), making it absolutely clear that all the remedies that would have been available under judicial review will be available under statutory review. Amendment No. 64, which relates to Clause 38(7), seeks to remove from the face of the Bill the ouster clause—that is, the clause which says, "““Except as provided by this section, the validity of a penalty is not to be questioned by any legal proceedings whatever””." I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
688 c1034-5 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Complaints Consumers Appeals Business Competition Legal profession Fees and charges Fines Powers Regulation Rural areas Legal Services Board
Legislation
Legal Services Bill (HL) 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk