Proceeding contribution from Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 18 April 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Legal Services Bill [HL].
Legal Services Bill [HL]
moved Amendment No. 131: 131: Clause 36, page 18, line 4, leave out paragraph (a) and insert— ““(a) that an approved regulator has failed to comply with a requirement to which this section applies, and? The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 136, 137, 140 to 145 and 175. In Committee, noble Lords presented a number of characteristically persuasive arguments questioning the way in which the board’s fining power is intended to operate. Having had the opportunity to reflect on those arguments, I am persuaded of the case for change. I am therefore bringing forward amendments to limit the circumstances in which the board may exercise its power to fine to those instances where an approved regulator has failed to separate its regulatory and representative functions in accordance with rules made under Clause 29, failed to comply with a direction made under Clause 31, or failed to comply with Clause 50 or rules made under that clause relating to practising certificate fees. These are all issues over which the approved regulator has both the responsibility for the issue and the ability to control outcomes. In these instances, it is clearly right that the board should be able to issue a penalty if it considers that that is the most effective course of action. Consumer groups have argued strongly against constraining the fining power; they see the board’s power to impose a financial penalty as an important part of a regulator’s toolkit and one that, when used, will send a clear and public message to consumers that regulators have the ability and willingness to act on their behalf. To an extent we accept that view, but noble Lords will see that I have tabled amendments to determine the circumstances. We have also lengthened the time within which an approved regulator can appeal a financial penalty from 42 days to three months. We accept the view of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that the timeframe within which to appeal should reflect the timeframe for judicial review. I hope that noble Lords will recognise that the Government have listened to their concerns and that we have moved to constrain the fining power and to extend the arrangements to challenge the use of that power. I believe that, in doing that, we have gone as far as is reasonable. I hope that noble Lords will accept these amendments. I beg to move.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 691 c257
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Complaints Consumers Costs Competition Competition Commission Legal profession Fines Exemptions Monitoring Standards Voluntary organisations Regulation Wills Legal Services Board Legal Services Consumer Panel
- Legislation
- Legal Services Bill (HL) 2006-07
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 11:35:33 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_390442
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_390442
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_390442