My Lords, I will say just a few words in reply. I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. The opening few paragraphs seemed to be rather good, but unfortunately the quality was not maintained and he ended with a view about how he and his cohorts intended to proceed which I did not hear with any pleasure.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who believes in the principle that I am contending.
As for the Minister, I thank him for the graciousness with which he dealt with my position, and his courtesy—I suppose you would call it that. However, he is wildly optimistic if he thinks that any court will construe the words, "““must consult with the Lord Chief Justice””,"
even if accompanied by a ““consultation on process””, as being stronger than the words, "““concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice””."
I see that he is shaking his head; perhaps I do him an injustice.
Legal Services Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Neill of Bladen
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 25 October 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Legal Services Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
695 c1151 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:05:07 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_419742
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_419742
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_419742