Rarely am I accused of being warm and fluffy—I will treasure the moment—but the honest answer is that, from time to time, I find it difficult to persuade even one colleague to help me in dividing the House. If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to join me in changing Standing Orders so that one Member can divide the House, he will have a lot more fun. However, I accept his criticism, and perhaps I have not been as diligent as I should. I shall try to do better and see whether I can, following his advice, divide the House more often.
There is an implication in what the hon. Member for Leicester, East said, which is that, somehow, the Bill might not be that important, and certainly is not that controversial, so it does not require so much time for consideration. Let us look at the gist of the Bill. The explanatory notes, which usefully provide a summary, say that it"““changes the arrangements for the grant of public funding for representation in criminal proceedings in England and Wales.””"
I can think of few things that could be more important in terms of our criminal law and representation of our citizenry within it.
Criminal Defence Service Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)
Proceeding contribution from
Eric Forth
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 26 January 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Criminal Defence Service Bill (HL).
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
441 c1553-4 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-16 20:38:01 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_294786
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_294786
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_294786