Proceeding contribution from Lord Phillips of Sudbury (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Monday, 5 March 2012. It occurred during Debate on bill on Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
My noble and learned friend always speaks with great persuasiveness, but I cannot see any point that he has made that makes the amendments that are being debated a problem for him. Amendment 3 makes the independence, "““subject to any direction or guidance given under subsection (3)””," which covers one of the points that he made. As I say, there seems to be no argument that I can think of that makes the amendment inconsistent with the framework that the Minister has put forward. If that is right, given the universal anxiety about this point about independence, why in heaven's name not put it in the Bill?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 735 c1605
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Access Disadvantaged Benefits rules Costs Civil servants Advisory services Legal profession Equality Finance Legal aid scheme Domestic abuse Legal Services Commission Public appointments Social security benefits Sentencing Expert evidence Impact assessments Lord Chancellor
- Legislation
- Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 15:50:54 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_814665
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_814665
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_814665