Proceeding contribution from Lord Deben (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 23 March 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Coroners and Justice Bill.
Coroners and Justice Bill
Is not my hon. and learned Friend saying that, if the Government had started with a narrowly defined point to cover one case, it would be easier for the public to have confidence when they used that narrowly defined power, but given that they started with a much wider provision, the public must believe that the Government want a great deal more occasion for using their non-jury alternative? The Justice Secretary complains that the House cannot have it both ways, but we are not trying to: we are pleased that the Government have narrowed their case. However, the Justice Secretary cannot say that we should not be suspicious, given his starting point. Is not my hon. and learned Friend's solution therefore much safer?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 490 c85
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Children Disclosure of information Admissibility of evidence Data protection Crime prevention Courts Armed forces Death Coroners Juries Evidence Judges Legal representation Immunity certificates Foreign relations National security Northern Ireland Protection Parliamentary scrutiny Public inquiries Scotland Standards Terrorism Witnesses High Court
- Legislation
- Coroners and Justice Bill 2008-09
- Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 10:54:11 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_543418
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_543418
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_543418