My Lords, if I did not make myself clear, it is because I feel very strongly on these matters. Perhaps I should have taken more time to prepare my remarks, but yesterday I was dealing with the Energy Bill and one does not have time to do everything. The point is that a court would challenge even an Act of Parliament if it turned out to be, for instance, contrary to European law. That is why we have a statement at the beginning of every Bill stating that it is compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. Similarly, there have been cases, but they were special cases. The courts will not seek to challenge a decision of Parliament which was enshrined in a vote of both Houses. Judges would be exceedingly slow to do that, whereas they have shown themselves to be readily—I have quoted the figures—willing to challenge decisions by Ministers. If this is left as a ministerial decision rather than a parliamentary vote, my guess is that it will run into difficulty with the courts in a way that it would not if it had been approved by affirmative resolution in both Houses.
Planning Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Jenkin of Roding
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 6 November 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Planning Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
705 c421 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 22:57:47 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_506892
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_506892
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_506892