My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her response. I know that she has been in correspondence with the smaller regulators. It struck me from that correspondence that she has given them some encouragement to believe that the Government are sympathetic to what they are asking for.
I accept that the noble Baroness is reluctant to put in the Bill examples or particular factors to which the board should have regard. At the end of my opening, I suggested an alternative approach. I suggested that the noble Baroness might like to consider guidance as to how the Legal Services Board might approach the question of proportionality. The Government must know what they mean when they insert the word ““proportionality”” in the Bill. If the Government are saying that they do not know how the concept should be applied, the concept should not be in the Bill at all. If the Government do know how it should be applied, aside from the fact that plainly nobody can anticipate exactly the specific circumstances, they must have an idea how they expect the Legal Services Board to approach the issue. For the Government to say that they know how it should be applied and then to say, ““We are not going to tell you. Let us wait and see what the Legal Services Board is going to do””—if that is the Government’s position—is deeply irresponsible.
Legal Services Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Kingsland
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 16 April 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Legal Services Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
691 c107 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:18:39 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_389429
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_389429
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_389429