I entirely agree with noble Lords who have argued against the idea of a sunset clause. My experience in this House has been that sunset clauses are invariably undesirable. That may not be the experience of everyone, but that is what I think. I have a profound suspicion, therefore, of what is envisaged here. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Borrie—not for the first time and, I am sure, not for the last time—who has put his finger on this issue. It is always possible for someone to move that a situation is not working properly, and I envisage that it will be possible in this case as well. So why do we have a sunset clause? The arguments that I have heard today in favour of this proposition have been singularly unconvincing. I would prefer that we should have monitoring and research, which we would always have in any event. Why do we have this provision at all?
Legal Services Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Clinton-Davis
(Labour)
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 c663 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:03:56 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_376571
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_376571
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_376571