I have listened with great interest not only to the comments that have been made in the debate on this amendment, but those made in our wide-ranging discussion on questions of independence. Although I do not accept, as noble Lords would expect, that other Secretaries of State would not carry out their role fully, I understand completely what noble Lords are saying about the role of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. When the Constitutional Reform Act was completed—noble Lords will remember the concordat in that—certain elements were classified. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, referred to the example of the transfer of functions order, which sat in the remit of the two positions embodied in a single person. The legal professions rested with the Secretary of State. That is a very simple explanation of why it ended up there.
I have listened with great care, and I have said in all these debates that I am keen that we reflect as a Government on the issues where noble Lords are rightly and reasonably saying, ““We hear what you say, we do not necessarily agree with you, but we think that you need to think about independence””. I know that a number of noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, who is not in his place, and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, referred to the fact that my case is weaker because I do not look at this amendment properly and fully. Noble Lords will notice that I am not speaking from notes. Therefore, I am going to accept the amendment. We will have to make consequential amendments to the Bill because I do not think, with the best will in the world, that noble Lords have captured all the references. I am prepared to accept the amendment, but I am not prepared to go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, is asking me to at this point, which is to put something in the Bill that says that you cannot transfer functions. I know, because I have checked, that we do not need another transfer of functions order if I accept the amendment, which goes a long way to doing that. If I accept the amendment, we do not need to do anything else. I hope that noble Lords will recognise the good will in that acceptance towards what they seek to achieve.
Legal Services Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Ashton of Upholland
(Labour)
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 c166-7 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:05:45 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_368032
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_368032
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_368032