If both must agree, it is not concurrence when only one can make the decision. I am not sure what the right phrase is in this context, but while I am aware that lawyers like to dance on the head of pins when it comes to definitions, I think that the hon. Gentleman needs to reflect on the meaning of ““concurrence”” and my reason for rejecting it in this instance. As I said in Committee, the decision should be made in consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, and no doubt with others—that will be in the Bill—and the Lord Chief Justice will be able to make his views known.
Members will recall that I wanted to re-examine the question of the lay chair following our robust debate in Committee about what should happen if for some reason the first chair—who, under the Bill as it stands, must be a lay chair—vacates office prematurely. The possibility was mooted that a lawyer might be able to become chair of the board earlier than had been intended. I therefore tabled amendments Nos. 103 and 104 to ensure that all chairs appointed in the first five years must be lay. Now my hon. Friends the Members for North Durham (Mr. Jones) and for Bassetlaw (John Mann) have tabled an amendment providing for the chair always to be lay, and for that reason I shall not pursue amendment No. 103. I think that the arguments my hon. Friends advanced in Committee—which I hope they will reinforce this evening—are excellent.
Those arguments will give the consumer confidence that the regulatory system is designed to protect them, which is why we already require a majority of the board to be lay. That does not prevent people who have qualified as lawyers from sitting on the board; after all, they will be able to provide an essential insight into the profession. However, I have been persuaded by the arguments. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham tabled another amendment that has not been selected, but he will find that amendment No. 104 achieves the same end. For that reason, I hope that the Government amendments that I have set out will be accepted.
Legal Services Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Bridget Prentice
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 15 October 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Legal Services Bill [Lords].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
464 c589 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:38:16 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_417182
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_417182
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_417182