Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Kingsland (Conservative) 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]

That might be one of the Government’s responses in replying to the amendment. This is a probing amendment which seeks to air what many people believe is an omission in the Bill. In promoting the amendment, I have not yet made up my mind whether the Bill ought to deal with the matter. However, as widespread concern has been expressed outside this House about the absence of a section dealing with paralegals, it is right that the issue should be aired in your Lordships' House, which is why I have done so. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, made a perfectly valid point: one may well say that paralegals are indirectly regulated because their principals are regulated under the Bill. I do not say that that is necessarily a satisfactory answer, but it is an important component of the argument. It might be said that it is wrong that the Bill should leave unregulated such a large section of legal activity. In drafting this amendment, we tried to strike a balance, and we hope that the Minister will reflect on it accordingly. I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
688 c917 
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