Proceeding contribution from Baroness Butler-Sloss (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]
I also support the amendment. Under Clause 30(2)(a), the words ““one or more”” may make it possible to look at each individual regulatory objective, and one may be at odds with another. In particular, protecting and promoting the interests of a section of consumers may not be compatible with protecting or supporting the other regulatory objectives. I believe it is extremely important that there should be a broad, objective view of how the particular approved regulator may have been in breach and whether being in breach of one objective may be acceptable because the regulatory body was supporting another objective. In that instance, there is a greater importance. I would support a broader approach, and the word ““one”” is worrying.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 688 c981
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Consumers Competition Legal profession Education Lord Chief Justice Standards Training Regulation Solicitors Legal Services Board
- Legislation
- Legal Services Bill (HL) 2006-07
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 11:16:43 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_371753
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_371753
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_371753