Proceeding contribution from Lord Clinton-Davis (Labour) 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 raise a point that is contained in the paragraphs headed ““The Practitioner Panel”” and related to the paragraphs headed, "““Committees and the procedure of the Practitioner Panel””." In the first instance, the Secretary of State has a role. His approval is, "““required for the appointment or dismissal of the chairman””." Amendment No. 38B subsection (6) states: "““Where a person who is not a member of the Practitioner Panel is a member of a committee established by it, the Board may pay to that person such remuneration and expenses as the Board may determine””." Should the board not at least be required to consider in conjunction with the Secretary of State the remuneration? There seems to be some contradiction on that.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 688 c939
- 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 11:16:53 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_371670
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_371670
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_371670