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]
I am of course most grateful. I was interested to hear the noble Baroness use ““no evidence”” as one reason for not supporting this amendment. There are so many circumstances in the Bill when there has been no evidence of any potential danger to the consumer; nevertheless, the Government have felt obliged, or indeed have been determined, to regulate. I therefore hope that she will forgive me for not putting too much weight on that part of her response. It is clear that the Law Society has some evidence. If that is cogent evidence, not accepting this amendment would leave a substantial gap in the regulatory system for the Bill.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 690 c173
- 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 11:57:23 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_382079
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_382079
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_382079