Schedule 1
Legal Services Bill [Lords]
4:00 pm
David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate, Conservative)
It has been said in debate. Although the Minister may not have said those words, it was put forward in the other place as a rebuttal to the Bill. One must take account of the fact that the independence of the profession is very much bound up in the independence of the judiciary, which is a cornerstone of our constitution and should be properly respected. It is not sufficient just to say that the Lord Chief Justice may well be contacted or consulted as part of the appointments process and that may happen in the formal manner. There needs to be a formality to this situation, but that would not be the case should the amendment be accepted.
It is also not adequate to pray in aid Sir David Clementi. His report did not specifically say that he wished to have the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice. However, he was arguing in a context. He said:
“Given the need for independence, and the objective of the rule of law”.
Interestingly, despite not being a lawyer, he makes particular reference to the rule of the law. The Government have not mentioned the point much in supporting this amendment.
Sir David Clementi continued:
“it seems right that the judiciary should be involved in the appointment; but that it should be solely their appointment would imply that they had primary responsibility for the regulatory system and its performance.”
He was examining whether the judiciary should be solely responsible for the appointment, and decided that that should not be the case and that consultation with the Lord Chief Justice should take place.