Skip to main content

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]

We all accept that the judiciary, solicitors and barristers are independent of Government. If I may put it gently to the hon. Gentleman, he is perhaps living in the past. The Liberal Democrats, if not the hon. Gentleman, supported the Lord Chancellor having some oversight of appointments to the consumer panel, yet he suggests that there should not be oversight of the chair of the legal services board. Although I have conceded that it is important for the Lord Chancellor to consult the Lord Chief Justice, some may feel that if the Lord Chief Justice's view of the appointment were very different from that of the Lord Chancellor, it should not be suppressed. Let me make it absolutely clear that if in consultation the Lord Chief Justice took a view contrary to that of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice would be perfectly entitled, and able, to make his view public. I do not think for a moment that Ministers would be able to apply pressure to him—or her, if we ever have a female Lord Chief Justice.


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