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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 12:03:56 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_376571
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_376571
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_376571