Proceeding contribution from Lord Kingsland (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 15 May 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Legal Services Bill [HL].
Legal Services Bill [HL]
My Lords, I shall not take this matter further, other than adding a few words in conclusion. I remain bewildered that, on the one hand, the noble Baroness can say that there is no conflict and that the provisions in the Bill are entirely consistent with the regulator’s hegemony but that, on the other hand, she is reluctant to say that in the Bill. If the underlying facts confirm the regulator’s hegemony, I see no reason why on Earth that cannot be said in the Bill for the sake of certainty. However, I think that this is now a matter for another place. On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 83 [Licensing rules]:
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 692 c135-6
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Disclosure of information Company law Directors Delegated legislation Conflict of interests Legal profession Licensing Investment Germany Law Society Misconduct Powers Regulation Legal Services Board Alternative business structures 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 12:30:44 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_396689
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_396689
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_396689