My Lords, I believe it is for me to speak next on this matter, as it was my amendment which the Government have now overturned in the House of Commons. We have considered the situation, and are content with the Government’s acceptance of the amendment moved by my honourable friend, Mr David Health, in the other place. That disposes of any controversy in this matter.
I should like the Minister to explain one point which has somewhat confused me. New subsection (5) says:"““The provision which may be made under sub-paragraph (4)(c) includes provision prescribing circumstances in which the person or body reviewing a decision may refer a question to the High Court for its decision””."
So far as I can see, that paragraph relates to transitional provision. I think that means new subsection (4)(ba). If I am right, this is the sort of technical defect that could be corrected without having to bring the matter back to your Lordships’ House. Will the Minister confirm that? I believe that new subsection (4)(ba) refers to the provision for reviewing a decision, rather than to the transitional provision.
Criminal Defence Service Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Goodhart
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 13 March 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Criminal Defence Service Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
679 c985-6 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-16 20:19:41 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_307391
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_307391
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_307391