Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Pannick (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 27 March 2012. It occurred during Debate on bill on Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.


Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I simply do not understand how the amendment undermines certainty any more than does the equivalent provision in Part 1. I repeat that it would simply confer a discretionary power on the Lord Chancellor. I understand that the Government believe that the architecture in Part 2 is correct, but the Minister should accept that experience may show that in some contexts, the architecture does not work. The amendment would, importantly, ensure that if those concerns prove to be justified, the Lord Chancellor will have a power to do something about it. This is an important matter. I wish to test the opinion of the House. Division on Amendment 24 Contents 162; Not-Contents 195. Amendment 24 disagreed. Moved by


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
736 c1320-1 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Children Children in care Alcoholic drinks Defamation Damages Costs Alternatives to prison Housing benefit Housing Health services Human rights Legal aid scheme Human trafficking Empty property Insolvency Legal costs Homelessness Abduction Newspaper press Misuse Monitoring Magistrates Negligence Probation Metals Social security benefits Sentencing Vulnerable adults Young people Social services Theft Squatting Conditional fee agreements Citizens' advice bureaux Community orders Care leavers
Legislation
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk