Proceeding contribution from Viscount Bledisloe (Crossbench) 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]
It seemed to me that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, had conclusively answered the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. It may well not be necessary to set up a new body to represent practitioners, because they have a body. At the moment in the Bill, as I understand it, this board, which has a majority of laymen, is bound to listen to representations from consumers and to answer those representations and explain why it is not accepting them. As far as I know, there is no obligation on the board to listen to practitioners at all or to answer practitioners. It would be fairly extraordinary, would it not, to have a body of laymen regulating the provision of medical services that was bound to consult patients but need not listen to doctors at all? Subject to being corrected, that is what the Bill says. It may not be what the Bill intends, but it is what the Bill says.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 688 c932
- 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 11:16:49 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_371647
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_371647
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_371647