Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Kingsland (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 6 February 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 most grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. That is precisely, as I understand it, the rationale for my noble friend’s amendment. The limitation of the pilot scheme, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has pointed out so clearly, is that it would be just one structure in a system which may have many different examples. I apologise for speaking before my noble friend Lord Hunt has had a chance to speak, which I know he will do when the next amendment is called, but the logic behind his amendment is that there should be a period of a number of years during which a whole range of structures might emerge.There could be comprehensive monitoring of all those structures. If it transpires that the system is not working as the Government hoped, after five years there will be a cut-off date by which they will, either voluntarily or having been compelled, adjust the system to accord with the monitoring results. That is the strength of the sunset clause as opposed to the pilot project. However, I do not wish to take away anything from what the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, seeks to do. His concerns are plainly our concerns; indeed, they are the concerns as so far expressed on all sides of the Committee.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
689 c656 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Legal profession Licensing Exemptions Misconduct Pilot schemes Northern Ireland Patents Scotland Regulation Trade unions Solicitors Trade marks Legal Services Board Sunset clauses
Legislation
Legal Services Bill (HL) 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk