I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord and am grateful for him giving way. May I draw him back to Amendment 38? I completely accept and take on the chin his criticism of my use of the word “alternative”, but I used it as a distinction from procedures by court. I understand his Amendment 38 to be concerned with out of court procedures, with what I used to call “alternative dispute resolution” procedures, but never will again. Nevertheless, it is concerned with integrating, as I understand it, dispute resolution procedures organised by third parties, which are not applicable to the example that he gave of having your rights vindicated by reference to the procedures that are allowed by Clause 19 of having court procedures online, which is slightly different.
Judicial Review and Courts Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 24 February 2022.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Judicial Review and Courts Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
819 c402 Session
2021-22Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2022-02-28 10:51:57 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2022-02-24/22022456000006
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2022-02-24/22022456000006
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2022-02-24/22022456000006