Proceeding contribution from Baroness Ashton of Upholland (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 shall just make my point, and then the noble Lord can reasonably interrupt me again. If we followed the route of this amendment in saying that there was an exemption unless otherwise stated, and the Consumer Panel were to identify, as noble Lords have suggested, that there had been a detrimental effect, and that that in turn was seen to have a detrimental effect on the regulatory objectives, the only option to the board would be to use one of the powers given within the Bill. It is much better that alterations are dealt with in dialogue between the board and the frontline regulator before we ever get to the stage that, because they did not discuss it, the only option open to the board is to use its power. That, above anything else, is an issue we should consider very carefully.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 688 c959
- 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 11:16:42 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_371726
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_371726
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_371726