If the noble Lord will permit me—paragraph 1.34 deals with the previous version of this clause, which I do not put and would not have supported before your Lordships. The JCHR is saying that the previous version of the clause, which appeared to be, on one reading at least, a complete ouster, represented an argument that was rejected in Shuker—namely that there could be no judicial review at all. I do not say that Shuker states that there cannot be judicial review at all, I say that it has to be, as the extract mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, said, considered with reticence—and I have indicated the reasons why. So I do not read paragraph 1.34 as rejecting the argument that there is not a problem in relation to the potential disclosure of sensitive information; the paragraph was dealing with the previous version of the clause, which we accept was not acceptable. That is why the clause has been substantially amended.
Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Goldsmith
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 19 March 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
690 c133-4GC Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:44:26 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_385922
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_385922
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_385922