Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 11 May 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Postal Services Bill [HL].


Postal Services Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his carefully considered reply but he gives me an impossible task because he asks me to be practical and apply common sense. In effect, what he is saying is trust judicial review. It is there, it is available but I am not sure that the Secretary of State has carefully considered not only the existing system and now the thousands—I have to tell him, the thousands—of cases which are going to judicial review. If I may, between now and Third Reading, I will pass him a copy of the research paper from the other place on judicial review which shows the extent to which it has become the first resort of a whole range of new procedures. The Secretary of State was, in effect, saying that it is either judicial review or that I am urging him to bring in a slow, costly and cumbersome system. Well, the amendment leaves the system up to the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State is wise, we will have a simple, easy-to-understand and quick system of appeal, because there is nothing in this amendment that lays down the procedure that must be followed on appeal. What I did—I hate to admit this—was look carefully at the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act. I have lifted this particular amendment out of the gangmasters legislation because it leaves to the Government the decision as to what system of appeal to bring in. I just thought that would be impossible to refuse. However, in view of what the Secretary of State has said, I shall have to go back to the drawing board and be a little more practical and apply a little more common sense, because I always follow carefully his steer. I do not think that he was saying that he would never agree to a system of appeal. I think that he was saying that he would never agree to a slow, costly and cumbersome system of appeal. Because I believe that often judicial review can be very slow, cost a great deal of money and often be exceedingly cumbersome, I must go away and think of a better procedure that I could put before him. I shall certainly do that but, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 67 withdrawn.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
710 c911-2 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Consumers Companies Directors Annual reports Finance Government shareholding Protection Pensions Post offices Prices Postal services Ofcom Post Office Regulation Taxation Royal Mail Reorganisation Universal service obligation Shared ownership schemes TNT Employee ownership
Legislation
Postal Services Bill (HL) 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk