Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 15 October 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Legal Services Bill [Lords].


Legal Services Bill [Lords]

A lot of important points have been made in the debate, and I wish that we had more time to discuss them, but there are still groups to discuss, so I want briefly to address the key issue on clause 108. The Minister thought that 25 per cent. bodies should not be automatically considered as low risk. I totally agree with that, but such 25 per cent. limited disciplinary partnerships would be much more likely to be low risk and a known entity by the time that the full ABS licensing provision comes into effect. Although I hope that the regulators and the LSB will consider the issue carefully and in good time, so that no upset is caused as a result, I take the Minister's point that the Lord Chancellor can recognise the need for flexibility based on the board assessment, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
464 c639-40 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Disciplinary proceedings Compensation Codes of practice Accountability Appeals Advisory services Conflict of interests Legal profession Fees and charges Licensing Judiciary EU law Exemptions Legal opinion Industrial diseases Law Society Misconduct Professions Public appointments Mining Ombudsman Lord Chief Justice Regulation Trade unions Rural areas Solicitors Trade marks General Council of the Bar Legal Services Board Office for Legal Complaints Alternative business structures Legal Services Consumer Panel
Legislation
Legal Services Bill (HL) 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk