Results 141–160 of 980 for speaker:Lord Wolfson of Tredegar

Nationality and Borders Bill - Report (1st Day): Amendment 24 (28 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: In so far as the court has been told by Parliament that it can do that in the 1993 Act when it comes to the Immigration Rules, the court can do so. But, with the greatest respect, the courts interpret legislation; they are not there to go behind legislation with an autonomous meaning, so far as the courts are concerned, of what the refugee convention means. What the convention means is a...

Judicial Review and Courts Bill - Committee (2nd Day): Amendment 51 (24 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: My Lords, as this is the last group in Committee, it is nice to end on a point of general agreement rather than discord. Whoever put the groups together, I take my hat off to them. I respectfully welcome the proposals in Amendment 51, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and am grateful to him for the time that he has given to me and my officials in discussing this. The...

Judicial Review and Courts Bill - Committee (2nd Day): Amendment 47 (24 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: My Lords, the amendments in this group, Amendments 47, 48 and 49, would introduce three new clauses on legal aid for inquests. Let me make two points right at the start. First, we have now heard about two colliery disasters. The Gresford disaster was something that my late grandfather used to talk about, although he was from south Wales and not north Wales. As a boy, and I have just been...

Judicial Review and Courts Bill - Committee (2nd Day): Amendment 47 (24 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: The noble Lord has not read it yet, but I will take the bravos in advance in case I get brickbats later. I hope it will be a piece of work which will find support. Given that ongoing work and while recognising there is a point of principle between us—I absolutely accept that—none the less, for today’s purposes, I respectfully invite the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, not to press the...

Judicial Review and Courts Bill - Committee (2nd Day): Amendment 40 (24 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: I understand that, certainly from my postbag. I should say that coroners work extremely hard, but the pandemic has caused a real problem. I do not want to go back to the online discussion, but we hope that enabling people to do that sort of thing online will help. I certainly take the noble Lord’s point. To solve this, the amendments in my name will enable a coroner to provide the...

Judicial Review and Courts Bill - Committee (2nd Day): Amendment 40 (24 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: I can accept two points there. I can accept that I and the Government will reconsider it. We certainly will think about it. This is a bit of a chestnut point, if I may say so; it has been discussed on a number of occasions. But the Government’s current position is that we want coroners’ inquests to be inquisitorial and not adversarial. Secondly, I accept, as a consequence of that, that we...

Judicial Review and Courts Bill - Committee (2nd Day): Amendment 40 (24 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: Of course I understand that point, in the sense that I too have read the material of people who have been involved in inquests. I have read some of the material from the various groups which have been lobbying for changes in this area. I hope that I have set out the Government’s position fairly. As we all recognise, the point being made to me is fundamental. I do not want to keep repeating...

Judicial Review and Courts Bill - Committee (2nd Day): Amendment 40 (24 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: The fundamental point is: who is the “you”? Who are the parties to an inquest? As I was saying earlier, you do not have “parties” in inquests, in the same way that you do in adversarial proceedings. Of course, there are inquests where legal aid is provided and family members—or, indeed, other people—turn up with lawyers. However, as a Government, we certainly do not want the...

Judicial Review and Courts Bill - Committee (2nd Day): Amendment 40 (24 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: I am grateful for that clarification, but the same point would apply. If the only people who are interested—I am using that word in the technical sense—in the inquest can participate only by audio link, the coroner would have to either not hold the inquest and adjourn it or hold it, so to speak, in a room, despite those interested people not being able to be there. I will consider again...

Judicial Review and Courts Bill - Committee (2nd Day): Amendment 40 (24 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to coroners’ inquests, and include government and non-government amendments. I will begin with those tabled by noble Lords who have spoken and then come to the government amendment at the end. Before I do that, I should inform the Committee that the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of St Albans has kindly sent me a note, because his...

Judicial Review and Courts Bill - Committee (2nd Day): Amendment 40 (24 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: I was not seeking to take any procedural point. Rather than take time this afternoon, because we have not had a debate on the amendments, I will set out the position in writing and copy the letter appropriately. Before taking the amendments in turn, perhaps I may make an important point which is central to this discussion, which is that coroners—

Judicial Review and Courts Bill - Committee (2nd Day): Amendment 40 (24 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: It certainly is. I had prepared to respond to the amendments and am happy to do so if the Committee finds that more helpful. I see some nodding heads, in which case I will do it that way instead. I will obviously direct the right reverend Prelate to Hansard. I am very grateful. A central point which is really important is that coroners are judicial office holders—whether they go back to...

Judicial Review and Courts Bill - Committee (2nd Day): Amendment 38 (24 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: Let me deal with that last point. Amendment 38 is not about approving the persons but approving the process. For example, the Online Procedure Rule Committee will say, “This is the protocol” and there will be Wolfson Mediation Services and Falconer Mediation Services and people can choose in a market who they go to. Of course, those services which offer seamless transition to the online...

Judicial Review and Courts Bill - Committee (2nd Day): Amendment 38 (24 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: That is not what Amendment 38 is aimed at. It is not about accrediting mediation services. It is about saying to mediation services, “If you want people who are using your services, if the case does not settle, to be able to integrate seamlessly into the online court space, these are the protocols to do it”. It is a process point, not a mediation accrediting point. There is a separate...

Judicial Review and Courts Bill - Committee (2nd Day): Amendment 38 (24 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: With respect, of course I understand the point the noble Lord has made, and I will write to try to put a little more flesh on the bones. The last point he makes is in some ways perhaps the most important because I have seen two sides of this coin. The point the noble Lord has just made is that Parliament should have the final say on court procedures because, ultimately, it should not be for...

Judicial Review and Courts Bill - Committee (2nd Day): Amendment 38 (24 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: That is the point I was going to come to. Here we are dealing with the rules set out by the Online Procedure Rules Committee. That is not the Lord Chancellor. I want to show the Committee that the Online Procedure Rule Committee is set out in Clause 22, and in the usual way it is a committee which is not run by the Government but is run in the way that the procedure rule committees are run,...

Judicial Review and Courts Bill - Committee (2nd Day): Amendment 38 (24 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: I am grateful to the noble Lord. He is absolutely right about the three/three appointments, but I would respectfully direct his attention to two features of Clause 22. First, whom the Lord Chancellor can appoint is circumscribed by subsection (4). One of the three has to be a barrister, solicitor or legal executive. The second must have “experience in, and knowledge of, the lay advice...

Judicial Review and Courts Bill - Committee (2nd Day): Amendment 38 (24 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: I will first say a word about the amendment which I have put before the Committee. Dispute resolution is fundamental, and it is becoming ever more important. Although the noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to alternative dispute resolution, as he may have heard me say before, we have sought to drop the “A”. We do not call it ADR anymore, we call it DR, because we do not see it as...

Judicial Review and Courts Bill - Committee (2nd Day): Amendment 38 (24 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: The noble Lord is absolutely right, but I was seeking to make the point more broadly. I will come to the court procedures, but the noble Lord is right: Amendment 38 seeks to ensure that, when people go to pre-court dispute resolution—I think everybody in the Committee wants to encourage that—if the case does not settle in whole or even in part, they can seamlessly transition to the online...

Judicial Review and Courts Bill - Committee (2nd Day): Amendment 38 (24 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. Absolutely, this is about enabling people to vindicate their legal rights. The Government are conscious—we put a clause in the Bill specifically for this reason—that we need to safeguard those who cannot get online, either because they do not have proper broadband or proper facilities or because they are incapable for whatever reason...


<< < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >>

Create an alert

Advanced search

Find this exact word or phrase

You can also do this from the main search box by putting exact words in quotes: like "cycling" or "hutton report"

By default, we show words related to your search term, like “cycle” and “cycles” in a search for cycling. Putting the word in quotes, like "cycling", will stop this.

Excluding these words

You can also do this from the main search box by putting a minus sign before words you don’t want: like hunting -fox

We also support a bunch of boolean search modifiers, like AND and NEAR, for precise searching.

Date range

to

You can give a start date, an end date, or both to restrict results to a particular date range. A missing end date implies the current date, and a missing start date implies the oldest date we have in the system. Dates can be entered in any format you wish, e.g. 3rd March 2007 or 17/10/1989

Person

Enter a name here to restrict results to contributions only by that person.

Section

Restrict results to a particular parliament or assembly that we cover (e.g. the Scottish Parliament), or a particular type of data within an institution, such as Commons Written Answers.

Column

If you know the actual Hansard column number of the information you are interested in (perhaps you’re looking up a paper reference), you can restrict results to that; you can also use column:123 in the main search box.