Proceeding contribution from Lord Beecham (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 12 March 2012. It occurred during Debate on bill on Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
My Lords, if there is no intention at any stage to provide for appeals to a court, tribunal or other person against such determinations, why is the option included in the first place? Either the Government intend at some point for some categories of case to be dealt with in that way or they do not. If they do, they should make regulations. If they do not, subsection (6) is otiose. However, I am making no progress with the noble and learned Lord, and at this hour I do not propose to take the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 100 withdrawn. Amendment 101 not moved. Amendment 101A Moved by
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 736 c133
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Children Counter-terrorism Asylum Damages Assets Debts Caravan sites Credit Coroners Advocacy Criminal injuries compensation Housing benefit Employment Housing Health services Fees and charges Human rights Legal aid scheme Immigration EU law Human trafficking Legal costs Proceeds of crime Police custody Negligence Social security benefits Sentencing Tenants Travellers Unfair dismissal Terrorism prevention and investigation measures Debt relief orders
- Legislation
- Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 16:27:19 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_816762
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_816762
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_816762