Clause 16
Legal Services Bill [Lords]
11:45 am
Simon Hughes (Party President, Cross-Portfolio and Non-Portfolio Responsibilities; North Southwark and Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)
I have chosen to make the point now, rather than on the previous clause. Clause 16, like clause 15, is drafted, as has increasingly frequently been the case in recent years, using letters for a category, once it has been defined. That is fine; among other things it makes the text shorter. It reminds me of questions in law exams that are put in terms such as, “If A does this, then B does that, describe the relationship between A and B in law.” Has the Minister’s Department taken the innovative approach to this Bill that it has taken to some of its draft legislation, including the draft coroners bill, which it has proof-read for readability by common women and common men? I am keen—it is a recurrent theme with me—that we should take that approach, because the more complex the subject, the more important it is to ensure that the Bill is readable. I ask the question now, because this is the obvious point at which to ask it. Has this Bill been subjected to that sort of process?