I am grateful for the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, on this issue. Indeed, when this amendment was tabled we all started to think about eminent people we know who begin their careers in the law and then become experts, advocates or campaigners in a whole range of things, leading on from their early legal career.
I think noble Lords know what we are trying to do here. It is very important for there to be a huge statement of confidence in the first chairman bringing in the transition, and we think it right that that should be a lay person. We have said subsequently that that should not be a criterion that is overarching. A number of criteria will be considered. I do not really think I have to say to the noble Lord that someone who is quite clearly coming in to enhance their own career would be spotted through the process along the way. Lots of discussion goes on about the people who put their names forward, so I am less worried about someone doing that than he perhaps is. I am not sure about 10 years, either. I think 10 years is quite recent, particularly in your Lordships’ world. But I do take the point about people briefly practising 25 or30 years ago and then moving on as not being a suggestion that they are linked to the profession. I am very nervous about linking anybody to the profession in that way.
What I would like to do is take this away. I have had one brief discussion with my noble and learned friend about this today. We wanted to do two things: have a think about what we might do, and talk to the consumer groups that feel very strongly about this to explain our thinking so that we keep that balance right. I will come back with a suggestion perhaps for the next stage. But the point that is being made is that somebody who a very long time ago qualified and practised briefly in law and is the eminent person may be debarred. I had rather hoped that this would be in secondary legislation. This is a classic case of where being able to amend something because you have moved on would be better, but it is in primary legislation so we need to think about how we make sure we do not exclude eminent people of the future. I take the point.
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 c169-70 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:05:46 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_368045
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_368045
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_368045