I entirely accept that. In the same way that if any Minister—myself in a former capacity, my noble friend or the noble Baroness opposite—were to make an administrative decision within their department—in my case it might have been about the Child Support Agency or whatever—which did not go through parliamentary scrutiny, it would be perfectly proper, and occasionally happens, that there should be a JR. At that point a judge might well say, ““Minister, you have exceeded your administrative power””, and that would be fine. That is exactly what judges should do—they do it all the time—both for central government Ministers and for local government councillors. No one is challenging that. Of course there is an important key role for JR to ensure propriety of behaviour by people in official positions who carry official responsibilities.
However, that is a completely different situation from the one described by my noble friend. Parliament had seven hours of debate on these orders and—knowing all the facts alleged by Members opposite and ourselves and what they entailed—decided to support them. One judge, 1,000 parliamentarians, seven hours of debate. You can see why some of us feel that this was perhaps an intrusion on parliamentary sovereignty too far. I do not recede from that line.
Local Government Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 14 July 2010.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Local Government Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
720 c705-6 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 19:03:27 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_655966
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_655966
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_655966