Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Alderdice (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 21 October 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Coroners and Justice Bill.


Coroners and Justice Bill

My Lords, in the number of our earlier arguments and discussions in your Lordships’ House—for example, on the inclusion of the Security Service—the Minister’s response was that there has been no instance of a problem of this kind in 50 years. I am therefore a little surprised that he has not taken the opportunity, even when invited by the noble and learned Baroness, to explain when and at what stages there was ever any problem with what pertains at present. He has made his arguments, but he has not indicated in any way where they were alerted to this and why there was a problem. I understand why there might be a problem in theory, but I am at a loss to understand what the difference has been in practice. The Minister was invited to enlighten us. My hope is that coroners who are used to operating on the basis of "good" will interpret "exceptional" in the light of their experience of "good", perhaps guided by the Chief Coroner, on whom we are putting yet further expectations. In that light, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 19 withdrawn. Amendment 20 not moved.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
713 c755-6 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Armed forces Death Costs Departmental responsibilities Administrative delays Coroners Custodial treatment Finance Families Juries Electronic surveillance Evidence Liability Health professions Local government Medical examinations National security Public appointments Prisons Relatives Post-mortems Psychiatric hospitals Scotland Registration Standards Training Human remains HM Courts Service
Legislation
Coroners and Justice Bill 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk