Skip to main content

1-20 of 384 results for house:"House of Lords"

Department X
Department for Constitutional Affairs
Subject X
Accountability

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

More
Department for Constitutional Affairs (384)

Member

More

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More
Accountability (384)

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

Deposited by
Department for Constitutional Affairs
Type
Deposited papers
Date
29 March 2007
Reference
HDEP 2007/306
House
House of Lords

I am pleased to inform the House that I have today laid before Parliament and placed in the Libraries of both Houses the responses to the Government’s Confidence and Confidentiality: Improving Transparency and Privacy in Family Courts consultation paper, which was published on 11 July 2006. The document is available...

Member
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Labour)
Department
Department for Constitutional Affairs
Type
Written statements
Date
22 March 2007
Reference
690 c93WS
House
House of Lords
Deposited by
Department for Constitutional Affairs
Type
Deposited papers
Date
22 March 2007
Reference
DEP 07/770
House
House of Commons; House of Lords

I hope that that would never arise. We envisage that the OLC would say that the obvious solution to the question was for another lawyer to take on the case, and would instruct the lawyer who had failed the complainant to pay the costs of employing another lawyer. Ultimately, the...

Member
Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
21 February 2007
Reference
689 c1127-8
House
House of Lords

I think that this would be a good moment to bring the debate on this amendment to a close. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 134 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.] Clause 134 agreed to. Clause 135 [Limitation on value of...

Member
Lord Kingsland (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
21 February 2007
Reference
689 c1128
House
House of Lords

moved Amendment No. 134A: 134A: Clause 135, page 70, line 12, leave out ““£20,000”” and insert ““£25,000”” The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 134B. These two amendments, both of which have been inspired by recommendations of the Joint Committee, concern the limit on redress for...

Member
Lord Kingsland (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
21 February 2007
Reference
689 c1128
House
House of Lords

My amendment in this group accepts some of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and would go substantially further by putting the limit at £50,000. Earlier, we were subject to all sorts of cross-references to the financial services sector and its ombudsman. The limit there is £100,000, so...

Member
Lord Whitty (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
21 February 2007
Reference
689 c1129
House
House of Lords

I put it to the noble Baroness that it is in the interests of the OLC to retain control of the situation where the respondent does not fulfil his obligations once the decision has been made against him. If the OLC is not in control of the situation, a number...

Member
Lord Kingsland (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
21 February 2007
Reference
689 c1127
House
House of Lords

I am not disputing the role that the OLC has to play. We want the OLC to be clear that if the situation requires that someone else must do the work, that should happen. The difference between us is about who then makes the decision on employing the other lawyer....

Member
Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
21 February 2007
Reference
689 c1127
House
House of Lords

If the OLC is responsible for finding the other lawyer, the cost of that will be charged against the respondent. If the innocent complainant has to go away and instruct a lawyer himself, that raises a whole lot of difficult cost questions for the innocent complainant. If that flaw in...

Member
Lord Kingsland (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
21 February 2007
Reference
689 c1127
House
House of Lords

I support both amendments, although I would like to up the figure to £100,000. The important point that has been made is that there must be some rationale for it. Certainly, there has been discussion on linking the maximum award to that which is awarded by the financial ombudsman scheme....

Member
Baroness D'Souza (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
21 February 2007
Reference
689 c1129-30
House
House of Lords

One has to keep a sense of proportion about all this. If significant and serious loss is caused by the negligence of a solicitor, the proper remedy is to sue in the courts. This sort of compensation is limited to inconvenience or distress caused to the complainant as a result...

Member
Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
21 February 2007
Reference
689 c1130
House
House of Lords

I am grateful to noble Lords for raising this important issue. I have a lot of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has just said. Indeed, he is absolutely right: if significant redress were needed, one would go to the courts, and it would be right...

Member
Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
21 February 2007
Reference
689 c1130-1
House
House of Lords

I must vehemently oppose this amendment. The last two groups have seriously underlined a philosophical difference between the Opposition Front Benches and what I understood to be the original consumer-protection focus of the Bill. The whole point of ombudsman systems in other sectors is to have a disputes resolution process...

Member
Lord Whitty (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
21 February 2007
Reference
689 c1134
House
House of Lords

If we are not to have recourse to the High Court other than by judicial review, it makes it the more important to leave the figure at £20,000 and not to make it any greater.

Member
Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
21 February 2007
Reference
689 c1134
House
House of Lords

moved Amendment No. 134C: 134C: Clause 137 , page 71, line 40, at end insert— ““(10A) Where a determination has become final and binding in accordance with this section, the respondent may appeal to the High Court against the determination or any direction made under section 134(2).”” The noble Lord...

Member
Lord Kingsland (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
21 February 2007
Reference
689 c1132-3
House
House of Lords

My Lords, the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in support of this amendment really make the point I was seeking to make in relation to the last amendment. This is not a suitable parallel procedure to access to justice through the courts. As the Bill is drafted, it...

Member
Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
21 February 2007
Reference
689 c1133-4
House
House of Lords

My problem with what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has just said is that we then introduce a stark differentiation between the two schemes. The FOS scheme goes up to £100,000 and it is quite admittedly an alternative and parallel system to that of the courts. Why has...

Member
Lord Neill of Bladen (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
21 February 2007
Reference
689 c1131-2
House
House of Lords

The exchanges between the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, have raised an issue that I must confess I had not considered when I tabled the amendment. I hope that it is a matter on which the noble Baroness will reflect between...

Member
Lord Kingsland (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
21 February 2007
Reference
689 c1132
House
House of Lords

Before we finish on this amendment, I would like to correct the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Greenford. This is not just about inconvenience and distress; it is a way of resolving other issues. Clause 134(2)(c) states that the respondent must, "““pay compensation to the complainant of such an amount...

Member
Lord Whitty (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
21 February 2007
Reference
689 c1131
House
House of Lords