Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Kingsland (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 23 January 2007. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Legal Services Bill [HL].


Legal Services Bill [HL]

I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. I am, of course, aware that, where there is a statutory appeal system which gives the appellant all the opportunities that he would have had had he alternatively applied for judicial review, in many circumstances the effect would be to oust judicial review; but that is quite different from the use of an ouster clause, itself. Although judicial review is often denied in those circumstances, the administrative court would still wish to have the option to ensure that the remedies provided by the statutory system adequately covered the remedies available in judicial review. That is why the importance of Amendment No. 64 to some degree hinges on the Government’s response to Amendment No. 63. As long as the noble Baroness can confidently assure me that all the remedies that would have been available to somebody who had applied for judicial review as an alternative would be available under the statutory review scheme in Clause 38, I can feel more relaxed about Amendment No. 64. I think that that is what the noble Baroness said to me in response. I think she said that, because that is the case, it is not necessary to put it on the face of the Bill.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
688 c1036-7 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Complaints Consumers Appeals Business Competition Legal profession Fees and charges Fines Powers Regulation Rural areas Legal Services Board
Legislation
Legal Services Bill (HL) 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk