Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Robert Neill (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 4 June 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Legal Services Bill [Lords].


Legal Services Bill [Lords]

I apologise for not hearing the beginning of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, but I have just returned from a funeral in my constituency. I also declare my interest as a member of the Bar, though not a practising one. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, who referred to the Law Society, would accept that exactly the same point about transparency has been met by the Bar Council in separating its regulatory role, by setting up a Bar standards board, from the work of the rest of the Bar Council in its representational, lobbying or, to use the hon. Gentleman’s phrase, trade union role. The Bar Council and the Law Society have taken account of his point about transparency. Does it not also follow that, if we are talking about independence, things would be so much more robust if the Lord Chief Justice had to approve appointments to the legal services board? Is that not a double lock on independence?


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
461 c74 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Complaints Compensation Consumers Costs Competition Legal profession Finance Fees and charges Legal aid scheme Industrial injuries Law Society Legal Services Ombudsman Misconduct Low incomes Public appointments Ombudsman Lord Chief Justice Lord Chancellor's Department Standards Regulation Trade unions Rural areas Solicitors Wills General Council of the Bar Legal Services Board Office for Legal Complaints Alternative business structures
Legislation
Legal Services Bill (HL) 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk