Of course I agree with my noble and learned friend that every Minister is bound to uphold the rule of law, but the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has a specific obligation in relation to the rule of law with respect to the conduct of his Cabinet colleagues. If, by any remote chance, one of his Cabinet colleagues fails to take the rule of law into account in formulating a policy or in drafting a Bill, then the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is bound by virtue of his obligations under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 to intervene. So in my submission, the Lord Chancellor does have a very specific and special obligation in relation to the rule of law which is not shared by other Secretaries of State. If, as I have already sadly concluded, the noble Baroness is going to spurn my attempts to convince her about Amendment No. 5, I am going to suggest to her that her case would be strengthened if the decision-maker under this Bill was the Lord Chancellor and not the Secretary of State.
As to the other amendments, as I think I have indicated already, the approach is better than the one in the Bill but is not as good as the one enshrined in Amendment No. 5.
Legal Services Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Kingsland
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 9 January 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Legal Services Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
688 c141-2 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:06:37 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_367984
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_367984
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_367984