Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 21 February 2007. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Legal Services Bill [HL].


Legal Services Bill [HL]

When I was talking to the officials this morning about the amendment of my noble friend Lady Henig—it is very nice to see her joining us at this late hour—I said that I start dancing on the head of a pin when I try to explain to noble Lords the difficulties of changing the word ““desirability”” to ““need””. I am not sure that my noble friend’s amendment would have a substantive effect. I can see by looking at the clause that she is keen to change the wording because it would fit better, but it is important not to skew what then happens because the ““need”” to do something overrides any other consideration. Of course, I will consider my noble friend’s amendment and will think about whether the wording is right. There is very little between us on this; it is simply a case of whether I can persuade her that the language would have an effect that she herself would not wish to see. Although it does not say so in my speaking note, I am also perfectly happy to take away and consider the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, because I think that he makes an important point.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
689 c1155 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Complaints Disclosure of information Consumers Legal profession Misconduct Patents Ombudsman Regulation Trade marks Legal Services Board Office for Legal Complaints
Legislation
Legal Services Bill (HL) 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk