Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from David Heath (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 4 November 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill.


Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill

Obviously, a process, however simple, can be delayed in its execution. It might well be that those criticisms were entirely justified, and if so, I hope the JAC takes them into account and addresses the cause of the delay. I hope, too, that the Ministry of Justice is equally engaged in the process. However, I do not think that we can criticise a process for delay if the cause of the delay is not inherent in the process. That seems to be the crux of the argument. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr. Timpson) might have a justifiable complaint—I do not have the information to agree or disagree with him—but I do not see that the cause of the delay is inherent in the process set out in statute. There should be no substantial delay other than that necessary to do a good job in appointments.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
498 c903 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Devolved matters Audit Costs Court of Appeal Legal profession Human rights Judiciary Expenditure Legislative competence Judicial Appointments Commission for England and Wales Medical examinations Northern Ireland Pay Public appointments National Assembly for Wales Public expenditure Ministers Limitation of actions National Audit Office Scotland Tribunals Supreme Court Resignations Auditor General for Wales Lord Justices of Appeal
Legislation
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill 2008-09 to 2009-10
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk