Proceeding contribution from Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 23 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 hope the Minister will reflect on where we are. The Joint Select Committee, as my noble friend has mentioned, felt strongly that the Government should look again at the relationship between the supervising regulator and the approved regulator and look at the criteria for the use of each of the powers of the LSB. I thank my noble friend for tabling this particular amendment. I agree very much with what he and the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, have just said. My colleagues and I on the Joint Select Committee were worried that this will be a recipe for conflict. The Government’s stated intention is that the Legal Services Board should act in partnership with the approved regulators, seeking to resolve differences by agreement. I hope that very few differences will ever arise. But all this structure, particularly the power of fining, is a bit over the top. I hope the Minister will respond to my noble friend in giving us some examples. I was struck by my noble friend’s examples of the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence, the Financial Reporting Council and other bodies that have a supervisory role over other regulators, but do not have these sorts of draconian powers. We in the Joint Select Committee said that of course the LSB should be allowed to intervene to take over the functions of an approved regulator if, and only if, there is clear evidence that serious damage might otherwise be caused to the regulatory objectives. We agreed with that. However, the exercise of all these powers by one regulator over another has no real precedent, and is, as I have said, a recipe for conflict. I hope that we might return to the notion of positive partnership and try to lead the Minister to make a few concessions here. The Government promised to look again at the whole question in response to the Joint Select Committee report. They have not moved yet, but I detect that they are beginning to second-guess themselves on whether or not they have yet got it right. I hope they will move.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 688 c1025-6
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Complaints Consumers Appeals Business Competition Legal profession Fees and charges Fines Powers Regulation Rural areas 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 11:18:31 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_372318
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_372318
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_372318