My Lords, I rise briefly to support the general thrust of my noble friend’s remarks. The background from my point of view is slightly ironic. I too had noticed this and discussed it with the Minister. I told her that I was minded to put down the clause from the draft Bill today only to be told that my noble friend had got in ahead of me. I am happy, as it were, to hitch my wagon to his, with thanks to him.
I had noticed the disappearance of this clause, but I also have some sympathy with the point that it may not be needed strictly in terms of what you can or cannot do. Without doing quite as much constitutional heavy breathing as my noble friend, I see some merit in running up this particular flag as part of the legislation—or something like it—not least because of the point he made about the policy goals and the advantage perhaps for the development of the approach. I am not going to comment on whether the detail is right. I know that some members on the Council on Tribunals were concerned about the omission of the clause. Some also have concerns about whether it may not be too restrictive or need some refinement in detail. I do not want to enter into that, but I hope that in general terms—
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Newton of Braintree
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 31 January 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
689 c256-7 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:50:02 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_374611
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_374611
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_374611