We are extremely sympathetic to the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, expressed, which led him to propose a pilot scheme. Those concerns need to be addressed. However, I share some of the reservations about the appropriateness of a pilot scheme. We prefer the proposal made by my noble friend Lord Hunt, which forms part of the next amendment, for a sunset clause, but I believe that the reasons he proposes a sunset clause do not differ from the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, wishes to have a pilot scheme.
Serious hesitations have been expressed from all parts of the Committee about Part 5. Noble Lords have by no means been, in principle, hostile to ABS; but those concerns are sufficient, in my submission, to require the Government to go slowly, marking every step with clear research about the impact of these structures. The noble Baroness will be familiar with the hesitations we have expressed, perhaps most generally the importance of restricting the Legal Services Board to its supervisory role, our clear preoccupations with the lack of any express provision to reflect access to justice—
Legal Services Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Kingsland
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 6 February 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Legal Services Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
689 c655-6 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:03:54 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_376556
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_376556
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_376556