Proceeding contribution from Viscount Bledisloe (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 17 October 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Legal Services Bill [HL].
Legal Services Bill [HL]
My Lords, the noble Lord said that he agrees with much of the objectives of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, but he thinks that the wording of the amendment goes a bit too far. Would the sensible thing not be for him formally to make no objection to the amendment for the moment, and for it then to be discussed—the matter has got to come back to us anyway because of the previous vote—to try to find some compromise wording halfway between the two of them?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 695 c731
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Complaints Advisory services Legal profession Finance Licensing Judiciary Legal opinion Dismissal Law Society Misconduct Membership Public appointments Pensions Ombudsman Staff Lord Chief Justice Regulation Trade unions Rural areas Solicitors 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 11:52:17 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_418008
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_418008
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_418008