Proceeding contribution from Bridget Prentice (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 15 October 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Legal Services Bill [Lords].
Legal Services Bill [Lords]
If the hon. Gentleman looks back at our debate in Committee, he will read that I said—I repeat the point here—that it is odd that Liberal Democrats object to proper parliamentary scrutiny by, in this case, the Lord Chancellor, and of the appointment of the legal services board. The fact that it must be done under the rules of the Commissioner for Public Appointments makes it clear that the person has to be independent of Government and Ministers. I am determined that that should be the case.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 464 c588
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Disciplinary proceedings Compensation Codes of practice Accountability Appeals Advisory services Conflict of interests Legal profession Fees and charges Licensing Judiciary EU law Exemptions Legal opinion Industrial diseases Law Society Misconduct Professions Public appointments Mining Ombudsman Lord Chief Justice Regulation Trade unions Rural areas Solicitors Trade marks General Council of the Bar Legal Services Board Office for Legal Complaints Alternative business structures Legal Services Consumer Panel
- Legislation
- Legal Services Bill (HL) 2006-07
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 11:38:15 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_417175
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_417175
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_417175