Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Kingsland (Conservative) 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]

I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. There is no difference between us as a matter of principle. We agree that the OLC ought to have enforcement powers in this context. The only issue raised by the amendment is whether the powers granted to the OLC in this context are too severe. To go to court and initiate contempt proceedings is a very severe remedy—I submit, a disproportionate remedy. I entirely accept that there needs to be an effective remedy in such circumstances. The only difference between us is whether the remedies that I have suggested are sufficiently effective to deliver the policy that the noble Baroness seeks to advance. I will reflect on what the noble Baroness said and consider whether it is appropriate to bring the amendment back on Report but, meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 146 agreed to. Clause 147 [Reports of investigations]:


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
689 c1157 
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