Debate on bill on Thursday, 26 January 2006, in the House of Commons, led by Bridget Prentice. The answering member was Jonathan Djanogly.

Criminal Defence Service Bill (HL)

Criminal Defence Service Bill (HL). Report stage and Third reading debate. Agreed to on question. Passed.

Secondary information

Type: Parliamentary proceeding
Reference: 441 c1561-89, (corrigendum) 442 c578;441 c1561-89
Session: 2005-06
Department: Department for Constitutional Affairs
Legislative stage: Third reading; Report stage
Procedure: New clauses
Chamber / Committee: House of Commons chamber
Related items: Criminal Defence Service Bill (HL). As amended in Standing Committee A.
Tuesday, 10 January 2006
Bills
House of Commons; Corrections
Thursday, 2 February 2006
Parliamentary proceedings
House of Commons; Draft Criminal Defence Service Bill. Government response to the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee fifth report session 2003/04 (HC 746).
Wednesday, 24 November 2004
Command papers
House of Commons; Draft Criminal Defence Service Bill. Constitutional Affairs Select Committee fifth report, in 2 volumes, with proceedings, evidence (HC 746 i-iii not printed separately) and appendices.
Tuesday, 20 July 2004
Parliamentary committees
House of Commons; Draft Criminal Defence Service Bill. Memoranda in the form of evidence laid before the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee. (Vote)
Tuesday, 22 June 2004
Parliamentary committees
House of Commons
Proceeding contributions: David Burrowes | 441 c1564 (Link to this contribution) I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I agree that the new clause would seek to pre...; James Brokenshire | 441 c1564 (Link to this contribution) My hon. Friend makes some interesting points based on his experience in the criminal sector. Does he...; David Heath | 441 c1566-7 (Link to this contribution) I listened with great care to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) and I have a great dea...; Keith Vaz | 441 c1564-6 (Link to this contribution) I wish to speak only briefly on the new clause. It is sad that we have lost the eloquent skills of t...; David Burrowes | 441 c1563 (Link to this contribution) The purpose of the new clause is perhaps not so much to deal with that circumstance. No doubt any fi...; David Leslie Taylor | 441 c1562-3 (Link to this contribution) Having sat on the bench for a good number of years, I recognise some of the circumstances to which t...; David Burrowes | 441 c1563-4 (Link to this contribution) A statutory framework of regulations will seek to go into detail in relation, for example, to people...; David Leslie Taylor | 441 c1563 (Link to this contribution) The new clause does not make clear the circumstances in which it would not be practicable to refer t...; David Burrowes | 441 c1561-2 (Link to this contribution) I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I am grateful for the opportunity to present ...; David Burrowes | 441 c1586-7 (Link to this contribution) : I support the Bill, particularly in relation to the restoration of the means test and the fact tha...; James Brokenshire | 441 c1587-8 (Link to this contribution) I broadly welcome the introduction of the Bill, particularly in the context of the cost issues affec...; Keith Vaz | 441 c1583-4 (Link to this contribution) In response to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) in the las...; David Heath | 441 c1585-6 (Link to this contribution) : I must say to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) that it is paranoia of the highest o...; Keith Vaz | 441 c1588 (Link to this contribution) The problem remains that good legal aid practitioners are leaving legal aid work because the rates a...; James Brokenshire | 441 c1588-9 (Link to this contribution) The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, which I was coming to, about access to justice and the quali...; David Burrowes | 441 c1571 (Link to this contribution) The Minister suggests that the new clause should be rejected because allowing oral applications will...; David Heath | 441 c1574 (Link to this contribution) I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 21, at end insert—; Keith Vaz | 441 c1576 (Link to this contribution) I will speak only briefly to welcome the amendment. I think that it is the sensible way forward. I, ...; Jonathan Djanogly | 441 c1576-7 (Link to this contribution) It is at this stage that we see the real implications of the programme motion. I want the Minister t...; Bridget Prentice | 441 c1577-8 (Link to this contribution) I am grateful to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and to those Members who served ...; David Heath | 441 c1578 (Link to this contribution) I hugely welcome the Minister’s remarks. An outbreak of consensus seems to have spread to all Benche...; Bridget Prentice | 441 c1578-9 (Link to this contribution) I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. The Bill marks a significant stride forwar...; Jonathan Djanogly | 441 c1579-80 (Link to this contribution) I join the Minister in thanking all those Members on both sides of the House who have been involved ...; James Duddridge | 441 c1580-1 (Link to this contribution) What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the additional cost involved in that change? My impressio...; Jonathan Djanogly | 441 c1581-3 (Link to this contribution) My hon. Friend asks a good question. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell the House the answer....; James Brokenshire | 441 c1567 (Link to this contribution) I shall take just a brief moment of the House’s time to speak in support of the new clause tabled by...; Jonathan Djanogly | 441 c1567-8 (Link to this contribution) My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) is a gentleman with no little experi...; David Heath | 441 c1568 (Link to this contribution) indicated assent.; David Heath | 441 c1569 (Link to this contribution) Does the Minister agree that new clause 1(2) deals with precisely that point? It would require the f...; Bridget Prentice | 441 c1569 (Link to this contribution) My point is that the new clause does not add to the Bill, which is perfectly capable of dealing with...; Jonathan Djanogly | 441 c1568 (Link to this contribution) We did not do so because I was not happy with the Government’s position at that stage, and I wanted ...; Bridget Prentice | 441 c1568-9 (Link to this contribution) This Bill has two key objectives—to transfer the power to grant representation from the court to the...; Jonathan Djanogly | 441 c1570 (Link to this contribution) With respect to the Minister, I remind her that I did not mention human rights in my remarks—althoug...; Bridget Prentice | 441 c1570-1 (Link to this contribution) The hon. Gentleman mentioned human rights in our debate on this matter in Committee. The fact that h...; Jonathan Djanogly | 441 c1569 (Link to this contribution) The Minister referred to a new electronic system. Will she give us an idea of what that is, and when...; Bridget Prentice | 441 c1569-70 (Link to this contribution) I am no electronics whizz, so I cannot go into much detail. However, work on the programme is alread...
Notes: Daily part printing error - Amendment to Division list at 441 c1573, under "Noes", delete "Lidington, Mr. David"
Subjects: Criminal proceedings Appeals Courts Criminal Defence Service Finance Human rights Legal aid scheme Eligibility Legal representation Legal Services Commission Legal costs Powers Means-tested benefits
Legislation: Criminal Defence Service Bill (HL) 2005-06
Link: View this Parliamentary proceeding on www.publications.parliament.uk

Criminal Defence Service Bill (HL)

Secondary information

Librarians' tools