Clause 11 - Section 204(4): appeals
Homelessness Bill
6:45 pm
Dr Alan Whitehead (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions; Southampton, Test, Labour)
As the hon. Gentleman knows—given that he underlined such a point in an earlier contribution—there is a difference. That difference is that judicial review through the High Court is a process to be used in exceptional circumstances. It is not to be used as a routine course of action if the first course of action fails, as has been suggested in some quarters might be the outcome of an appeal through the county court.
The hon. Member for Cotswold referred to the difficulties that would arise for a local authority if the word ``may'' became ``must''. I suggest that, while the two acts are not exactly parallel, the fact that a person may decide that an appeal to the county court was the routine next step would have the effect, while maintaining a theoretical discretion, of bringing us to the situation where, in effect, ``may'' had been replaced by ``must''. The reality is that, in seeking to maintain that proper space between the right of a local authority to exercise discretion and the right of the individual to seek redress, judicial review through the High Court is the right course of action and that is the approach that the Government wish to take.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Woolas.]
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Seven o'clock till Thursday 12 July at half-past Nine o'clock.