Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 9 January 2007. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Legal Services Bill [HL].


Legal Services Bill [HL]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for reminding us of, I think, the only division that we had in the Joint Committee. No, there were two divisions, but this division was initiated by the noble Lord himself, in relation to the words that he has just referred to. This is in no way critical of the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, as he was absent for very good reasons, but, had he been present, the vote would have been tied. I say that only because there were differing views within the Joint Committee. Therefore, I would not disagree with a word that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has just said—that was our conclusion. But even that conclusion does not meet with the approval of the Government and it is right to remind ourselves that, until this moment, the Government have not given ground on anything in this area, whether on ““in full consultation with””, or ““with the concurrence of””, the Lord Chief Justice. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, will know, my preference in that division was for the word to be ““concurrence”” rather than ““consultation””. It was an amendment at the time—


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
688 c154 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Access Codes of practice Consumers Accountability Competition Legal profession Government departments Protection Membership Public appointments Public interest Regulation Legal Services Board
Legislation
Legal Services Bill (HL) 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk