Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Clinton-Davis (Labour) 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 entirely agree with noble Lords who have argued against the idea of a sunset clause. My experience in this House has been that sunset clauses are invariably undesirable. That may not be the experience of everyone, but that is what I think. I have a profound suspicion, therefore, of what is envisaged here. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Borrie—not for the first time and, I am sure, not for the last time—who has put his finger on this issue. It is always possible for someone to move that a situation is not working properly, and I envisage that it will be possible in this case as well. So why do we have a sunset clause? The arguments that I have heard today in favour of this proposition have been singularly unconvincing. I would prefer that we should have monitoring and research, which we would always have in any event. Why do we have this provision at all?


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
689 c663 
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