Proceeding contribution from Lord Lyell of Markyate (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 9 January 2007. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Legal Services Bill [HL].
Legal Services Bill [HL]
I support the objective of both amendments, although I slightly prefer Amendment No. 1. There is an important distinction between the point made by the Minister in her letter to the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, and the point that weare considering. Amendment No. 1 suggests that the regulatory objectives should protect and promotethe public interest. That is what I believe we should seek to do. The other three clauses—Clause 3(3)(c), Clause 27(3)(c) and Clause 113—simply require that those governed by those provisions ““have regard to”” the public interest. It is not quite the same thing. Protecting and promoting are stronger; the words are clear. I hope that the Minister, whose body language looks pretty useful, will rise to give us some comfort.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 688 c121
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Access Codes of practice Consumers Accountability Competition Legal profession Government departments Protection Membership Public appointments Public interest Regulation Legal Services Board
- Legislation
- Legal Services Bill (HL) 2006-07
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 12:06:41 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_367929
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_367929
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_367929