Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Kingsland (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 8 May 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Legal Services Bill [HL].


Legal Services Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her response, though, as she might imagine, somewhat disappointed. I refer first to Amendment No. 38. In our discussion on that earlier in the Report stage, I asserted that the noble Baroness had given an unequivocal undertaking to incorporate Amendment No. 38 into the Bill. The noble Baroness begged to differ and was going to look at the matter and come back to the House at Third Reading. Of course, we still await her explanation of what she has decided to do about the amendment. The purpose behind Amendment No. 38 has some influence over the amendment that we are discussing now. From what the noble Baroness says, I understand that she is reluctant to place Amendment No. 400 in the Bill. Nevertheless, her explanation for not wishing to do so appears to be that, in effect, the Bill already says what Amendment No. 400 states. Can I therefore take it that the Minister’s interpretation of the Bill is that the board is obliged to 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?


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
691 c1317 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Complaints Cost effectiveness Costs Legal profession Finance Fees and charges Law Society Standards Regulation Financial Reporting Council Legal Services Board Office for Legal Complaints
Legislation
Legal Services Bill (HL) 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk