I will speak very briefly to lend support in as full a measure as I may to this proposed amendment. I echo everything that was said by the noble and learned Lord. The contrast between what is provided for in Clause 46(2) and what his amendment strives for—a full merits appeal—is as well illustrated in the language of Clause 46(2)(b) as in any other way, because for this purpose you have to show that the decision was “wrong in law”. If the Bill had wanted to say that it was wrong in law or in fact—just wrong—it could have said so. That is what is now proposed. Judicial review is simply not a sufficient basis of appeal for decisions as fundamentally and crucially important to the future of the institution and those who are affected by it as is required.
Higher Education and Research Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 8 March 2017.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Higher Education and Research Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
779 c1416 Session
2016-17Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2017-03-23 08:57:01 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-03-08/17030866000055
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-03-08/17030866000055
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-03-08/17030866000055