I am most grateful to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen. I think that in my opening remarks I referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service, and I entirely accept that similar words are used in that case. I drew on the Scottish Bill, now an Act, only to emphasise that the principle established by the Financial Ombudsman Service has now been adopted in the context of legal services, and to underline that the Scots have gone further than simply using the words, "““fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case””,"
and have set out more detailed criteria about how those general words should be interpreted. I am not suggesting that what is good for the Scots ought to be good for us, but I believe that the discretion is unnecessarily wide and should be narrowed down in the Bill, either as has been done in Scottish law or in some other manner. That is the point that I seek to make.
The noble Baroness has explained why she does not think that this amendment is necessary. I shall retire—in relation to this amendment only, I hasten to add—and reflect on that. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Legal Services Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Kingsland
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 21 February 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Legal Services Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
689 c1124-5 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:09:21 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_378905
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_378905
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_378905