I also support the amendment. Under Clause 30(2)(a), the words ““one or more”” may make it possible to look at each individual regulatory objective, and one may be at odds with another. In particular, protecting and promoting the interests of a section of consumers may not be compatible with protecting or supporting the other regulatory objectives. I believe it is extremely important that there should be a broad, objective view of how the particular approved regulator may have been in breach and whether being in breach of one objective may be acceptable because the regulatory body was supporting another objective. In that instance, there is a greater importance. I would support a broader approach, and the word ““one”” is worrying.
Legal Services Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Butler-Sloss
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 22 January 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Legal Services Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
688 c981 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:16:43 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_371753
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_371753
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_371753