My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and, indeed, to the noble Lord, Lord Freud, for his contribution, to which I will return in a moment.
We should note that the Minister repeated what he said in his letter to the Law Society of Scotland—namely, that it could be more difficult for an interest group to bring a judicial review in Scotland than in England and Wales. It is regrettable, when we are establishing law in this House, that we should merely acknowledge that that will be the case, when in fact, at this stage, we have an opportunity to do something about it. If the Minister feels that the terms of the amendment are not sufficient to ensure that there is equality of access to remedy and to take action in all parts of the United Kingdom, perhaps it would have been better if he had been able to indicate that the Government would come forward with their own amendment to ensure that that was the case.
The Minister makes the point that judicial reviews are not normally available in the sheriff court in Scotland. Of course, the amendment does not refer to judicial reviews, but we are talking to a novel kind of statutory duty and it may well be that novel procedures are required if these duties are going to be more than just aspirations, albeit important and noble aspirations. That is why the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Freud, was important, because he asked what would happen in 2020 if these duties had not been fulfilled.
I was not overwhelmed or persuaded by the Minister’s reply that a declaration might be politically embarrassing. We probably need a court to give us that declaration. There will be plenty of political debate about it anyway. He said that the court might be able to order a course of action by a Minister, but how in the world would the resources ever be ordered to will the means to the end? It is therefore unfortunate that what was a worthy aspiration may not have judicial backing. I think that this is widely accepted. However, I welcome the comments about legal aid, which were helpful if it ever comes to that. I do not intend to press the amendment.
Amendment 3 withdrawn.
Amendment 4 not moved.
Amendment 5
Moved by
Child Poverty Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 9 March 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Child Poverty Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
718 c161 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 20:01:57 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_628549
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_628549
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_628549