Proceeding contribution from Jon Trickett (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 29 November 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on Public Bodies Bill [Lords].
Public Bodies Bill [Lords]
Of course it is, and I am baffled by that intervention, given that I have just said that section 40 allows for an appeals system to be introduced in due course. What was envisaged was a proper coronial system with an appeals process and a chief coroner who would have authority over the whole system. The Government are seeking to stop that logical process, which could be tested first by a pilot, and to put in an illogical system, with a chief coroner who would effectively be reduced to a purely administrative post. In response to a series of parliamentary questions and freedom of information requests, Ministers have revealed that at no stage have the Government estimated the likely costs of additional judicial reviews, as opposed to an appeals system. On that basis, it is odd to argue that savings will be inherent in this decision.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 536 c884-5
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Coroners Judicial review Public bodies Youth justice Youth Justice Board Chief Coroner
- Legislation
- Public Bodies Bill (HL) 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 19:22:38 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_789755
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_789755
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_789755