Briefly, the previous group of amendments and this amendment were not taken together for good reason, no doubt, but they overlap. While I entirely support the objective of my noble friend Lord Kingsland, we can all reflect on the interplay of the wording. It is noticeable that in Clause 34 and the succeeding clauses, having decided that there is an adverse impact, whether or not one adds an epithet like ““significant”” or ““substantial””, the board absolutely has to consider whether ““in all the circumstances”” of the case it is appropriate to act—bringing in all the questions of proportionality and so on. That is what we were asking for in the previous group of amendments. I have a feeling that as long as we get satisfaction in one or other group of amendment, we shall be there. While this may not be the moment to say it, I urge the Minister to look carefully at the previous group of amendments; we might then be less worried under this lot.
Legal Services Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Lyell of Markyate
(Conservative)
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 c991 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:16:46 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_371782
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_371782
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_371782