Proceeding contribution from Lord Maclennan of Rogart (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Monday, 22 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 appreciate the noble Baroness’s intervention, but I had a further point to make. The Minister drew our attention to Part 4 and suggested that there was something in the drafting of Clause 27, on the duty of the approved regulator, which might give comfort. I am bound to say that I find no comfort at all in Clause 27 with respect to the purposes of the amendment that the noble Baroness claims is redundant. Part 4, by its very location asthe fourth part of the Bill, seems to me to deal witha series of subordinate issues. Those issues are important, but those clauses do not deal with the primary role of the Legal Services Board. Clause 27, to which the Minister drew our attention, concerns the approved regulator, not the Legal Services Board. Frankly, it is by the way to the argument that we seek to deploy.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 688 c910-1
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Consumers Appeals Competition Legal profession Fees and charges Education Law Society Public appointments Patents Standards Training Regulation Solicitors Trade marks Wills Legal Services Board Legal Services Consumer Panel
- Legislation
- Legal Services Bill (HL) 2006-07
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 12:38:17 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_371581
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_371581
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_371581