Proceeding contribution from Lord Kingsland (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 6 March 2007. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Legal Services Bill [HL].
Legal Services Bill [HL]
moved Amendment No. 139FA: 139FA: Before Clause 158, insert the following new Clause— ““Duty to consult Board’s general duty to consult The Board must make and maintain effective arrangements for consulting representatives of practitioners and consumers on the extent to which its general policies and practices are consistent with its duty under section 3.”” The noble Lord said: The Legal Services Bill requires the Legal Services Board to consult before exercising a number of functions. For example, Clause 49 requires the board to consult before issuing policy statements; Clause 52 requires consultation before the board exercises its powers in relation to regulatory conflict; and Clauses 30 to 36 require the board to consult the approved regulator concerned before exercising powers relating to setting performance targets, making directions, issuing public censure and imposing financial penalties. However, there is no overall requirement to consult on the approach that the board is taking to the discharge of its functions and, in particular, on whether the scale and scope of its proposed activities are both appropriate and proportionate. The new clauses that we propose would fill that gap. A general duty to consult suggested in Amendment No. 139FA would require the board to consult about its general policies and practices. The more specific duty suggested in Amendment No. 139FB would require the board to consult about its annual work plans. As the Committee is well aware, the Bill already requires the board to consult on the apportionment of the levy, but at present there is no provision requiring it to consult about the range of work that it intends to carry out, which will inevitably largely determine the overall size of the levy. We wish to remedy that gap. Without a provision of this sort, there is a risk that the board will simply expand its activities on an incremental basis, increasing the cost to practitioners and thus, ultimately, to consumers year on year. We want to help to ensure that the board operates as a proportionate supervisory regulator. I beg to move.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 690 c148
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Complaints Disciplinary proceedings Disclosure of information Charities Companies Conveyancing Costs Business Legal profession Finance Fees and charges Licensing Immigration Exemptions Law Society Payments Public bodies Patents Small businesses Regulation Rural areas Solicitors Trade marks General Council of the Bar Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal Legal Services Board Office for Legal Complaints
- Legislation
- Legal Services Bill (HL) 2006-07
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 11:57:20 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_382034
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_382034
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_382034