Proceeding contribution from Lord Maclennan of Rogart (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Monday, 16 April 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Legal Services Bill [HL].
Legal Services Bill [HL]
My Lords, the groupof amendments that we are considering was foreshadowed in the debate that we had in Committee to which the Minister referred; the reasoning for the amendments was endorsed, indeed, presaged by me in that debate. It is important that the new regulatory system should so far as possible ensure greater independence of the legal professions from government; the substitution in the Bill of ““Lord Chancellor”” for ““Secretary of State”” was designed to bring that about. Since that debate, however, major changes have been announced in the structuring of government with regard to the role of the Lord Chancellor. It would be helpful if before this debate was concluded the Government could give some indication of how the establishment of a Ministry of Justice may have to be reflected in their thinking about the purposes that they have supported in introducing these amendments. The office of Minister of Justice, which will no doubt—or perhaps I should say ““probably””—still attract the title of Lord Chancellor, may be held by a Member of the House of Commons. That seems highly probable. It may be held by someone who is not a lawyer and who, in this new role as Minister of Justice with its very wide responsibilities, will not necessarily carry the conventional views on how the office should be discharged. The role in the Cabinet of the new Secretary of State/Minister of Justice/Lord Chancellor may be quite different from that historically discharged by the Lord Chancellor. The change announced by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was strongly supported on these Benches, but we equally strongly support the intention that the regulation of the legal professions and services should be so far as possible at arm’s length from government. The independence of that system is very important if public confidence is to be retained. We shall certainly have to give further thought to the consequences of that announcement on this Bill and possibly return to the matter at a later stage.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 691 c23-4
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Competition Departmental responsibilities Competition Commission Legal profession Office of Fair Trading Standards Regulation Legal Services Board
- Legislation
- Legal Services Bill (HL) 2006-07
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 12:19:11 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_389281
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_389281
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_389281