Found: Burnett of Maldon; Lord Falconer of Thoroton; Lord Foulkes of Cumnock; Baroness Finn; Baroness Goldie

Found: Members present: Baroness Drake (The Chair); Lord Anderson of Ipswich; Baroness Andrews; Lord Beith; Lord

Found: Members present: Baroness Drake (The Chair); Lord Anderson of Ipswich; Baroness Andrews; Lord Beith; Lord

Found: Burnett of Maldon; Lord Falconer of Thoroton; Baroness Finn; Baroness Goldie; Lord Strathclyde; Lord

Found: Burnett of Maldon; Lord Falconer of Thoroton; Baroness Finn; Baroness Goldie; Lord Strathclyde; Lord

Found: am Watch the meeting Members present: Baroness Drake (The Chair); Baroness Andrews; Lord Beith; Lord

Found: Wednesday 13 March 2024 10.15 am Watch the meeting Members present: Baroness Drake (The Chair); Lord Beith; Lord

Found: Wednesday 13 March 2024 10.15 am Watch the meeting Members present: Baroness Drake (The Chair); Lord Beith; Lord

Found: Anderson of Ipswich Baroness Finn Baroness Andrews Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Lord Beith Baroness Goldie Lord

Found: Ipswich Baroness Finn Baroness Andrews Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Lord Beith Baroness Goldie Lord

Found: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales , gave oral evidence.

Found: Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice between 2017 and 2023, speaking in December 2020, said: To

Found: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales , gave oral eviden ce

Found: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales , gave oral eviden ce

Found: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales , gave oral evidence.

Found: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales , gave oral evidence.

Found: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales , gave oral eviden ce

Found: This appoin tment follows the retirement of The Rt Hon. the Lord Burnett of Maldon on 30 September

Found: Committee, annual evidence session with the Lord Chief Justice, 18 May 2022 (Session 2022–23) QQ 1–16 (Lord

Found: Lord Burnett of Maldon: No.

Found: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales , gave oral eviden ce

Found: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales , gave oral evidence.

Found: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales , gave oral evidence.

Found: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales , gave oral evidence.

Found: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales , gave oral evidence.

Found: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales , gave oral eviden ce

Found: Letter from Rt Hon Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, dated 16 January

Found: Burnett of Maldon, Speech at the Swearing-in Ceremony of the Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, His

Found: and that Ms Helen Pitcher OBE was selected by a panel chaired by Lord Bew, accompanied by The Rt Hon Lord

Found: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon Oral Evidence

Found: 53 Oral evidence taken before the Constitution Committee, 26 May 2021 (Session 2021–22), QQ 1–15 (Lord

Found: Letter from the Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice and Head of the Judiciary of England

Found: Rt Hon Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, expressed agreement with evidence

Found: Lord Burnett of Maldon: Yes.

Found: Our annual evidence sessions with the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett of Maldon, have also been of

Found: Our annual evidence sessions with the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett of Maldon, have also been of

Found: For example, in The Lord Chief Justice™s Report 2021, Lord Burnett of Maldon, the current Lord Chief

Found: ˝˝Speaking extra-judicially, the present Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett of Maldon, has not disagreed

Found: THE LORD BURNETT OF MALDON THE RT. HON.

Found: The Rt Hon The Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales Oral Evidence

Found: 07/09/2021 Rt Hon The Lord Burnett of Maldon Lord Chief Justice of England & Wales Royal Courts

Found: England & Wales, to the Members 3 Letter of 22 November 2020 from the Members to the Lord Chief Justice, Lord

Found: Wales , to the Members 6 WE3 Letter of 22 November 2020 from the Members to the Lord Chief Justice, Lord

Found: 34 Oral evidence taken before the Constitution Committee, 13 May 2020 (Session 2019–21), QQ 1–17 (Lord

Found: Burnett of Maldon) 63 Q 1 (Rt Hon Lord Burnett of Maldon).

Found: estate which should benefit all involved.1 Evidence given to the Justice Committee in November 2018 by Lord

Found: days are no longer a constraint in this financial year in the crime, family or civil jurisdictionsfl (Lord

Found: The Rt Hon The Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales Oral Evidence

Found: Lord Faulks is a member of the Constitution Committee. 129 HL Deb, 3 November 2015, col 1522 130 Lord

Found: 1The Rt Hon The Lord Burnett of Maldon Πwritten evidence (CIC0045)House of Lords Constitution CommitteeInquiry

Found: Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice Q109Œ136 Friday 22 May 2020 Rt Hon The Lord

Found: Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice Q109Œ136 Friday 22 May 2020 Rt Hon The Lord

Found: evidence taken before the Constitution Committee, 3 April 2019 (Session 2017–19), QQ 1–12 (Rt Hon Lord

Found: Letter from Rt Hon The Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, dated 9 June

Found: John Howell; Kenny MacAskill; Dr Kieran Mullan; Andy Slaughter.Questions 137 - 175WitnessI: The Rt Hon Lord

Found: Judiciary of England and Wales Lord Burnett of Maldon (Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales at Judiciary

Found: period up to the con clusion of the Rwanda agreement, inadequate. 27 The then Lord Chief Justice, Lord

Found: The Lord Burnett of Maldon, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lady Justice King (2021).

Found: LORD THOMAS OF CWMGIEDD LORD BURNETT OF MALDON 120_ Clause 41, page 39, line 12, leave out from

Found: LORD THOMAS OF CWMGIEDD LORD BURNETT OF MALDON 123_ Clause 44, page 45, leave out lines 13

Found: Clause 41 LORD THOMAS OF CWMGIEDD LORD BURNETT OF MALDON 120_ Clause 41, page 39, line 12,

Found: Clause 41 LORD THOMAS OF CWMGIEDD LORD BURNETT OF MALDON 120_ Clause 41, page 39, line 12,

Found: Clause 44 LORD THOMAS OF CWMGIEDD LORD BURNETT OF MALDON 123_ Clause 44, page 45, leave out

Found: Clause 54 LORD THOMAS OF CWMGIEDD LORD BURNETT OF MALDON LORD BACH LORD GARNIER 170_ Clause

Found: Clause 53 LORD THOMAS OF CWMGIEDD LORD BURNETT OF MALDON LORD BACH LORD GARNIER 169_ Clause

Found: Clause 41 LORD THOMAS OF CWMGIEDD LORD BURNETT OF MALDON 137_ Clause 41, page 39, line 26,

Found: Clause 41 LORD THOMAS OF CWMGIEDD LORD BURNETT OF MALDON 137_ Clause 41, page 39, line 26,

Found: Clause 41 LORD THOMAS OF CWMGIEDD LORD BURNETT OF MALDON 137_ Clause 41, page 39, line 26,

Found: Clause 41 LORD THOMAS OF CWMGIEDD LORD BURNETT OF MALDON 137_ Clause 41, page 39, line 26,

Found: Clause 41 LORD THOMAS OF CWMGIEDD LORD BURNETT OF MALDON 137_ Clause 41, page 39, line 26,

Found: Clause 41 LORD THOMAS OF CWMGIEDD LORD BURNETT OF MALDON 137_ Clause 41, page 39, line 26,

Found: period up to the con clusion of the Rwanda agreement, inadequate. 27 The then Lord Chief Justice, Lord

Found: Clause 41 LORD THOMAS OF CWMGIEDD LORD BURNETT OF MALDON 137_ Clause 41, page 39, line 26,

Found: Clause 41 LORD THOMAS OF CWMGIEDD LORD BURNETT OF MALDON _ Clause 41, page 39, line 26, leave

Found: referral in respect of a point of law arising from the acquittal the Colston statue protestors : 39 Lord

Next week we will question The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales. We will be examining his annual report and other key issues within his remit. ? Find out more: https://t.co/Gy9wDpypeS ? Watch the session: https://t.co/LiFz4NXrGD https://t.co/hZgaGw0BgT

@PAImages @GarethJFuller @PA The person in the middle is indeed the Lord Chief Justice - Lord Burnett of Maldon, who succeeded Lord Thomas in 2017.

Found: The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, the Lord Burnett of Maldon, and the Senior President of

Found: Honourable Dominic Raab MP Lord Chancellor & Secretary of State for Justice The Right Honourable Lord

Found: The latter, Dame Sue Carr, was earlier sworn into role after The Right Honourable Lord Burnett of Maldon

Found: This appointment follows the retirement of The Rt Hon. the Lord Burnett of Maldon on 30 September 2023

Found: The selection panel was chaired by Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett of Maldon.

Found: Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ said at [84 ]: “… Those lawful activities in this case [viz, the building

Found: Honourable Dominic Raab MP Lord Chancellor & Secretary of State for Justice The Right Honourable Lord

Found: referring to actions or decisions taken by the former Lord Chief Justice, the Right Honourable the Lord

Found: Letter dated 19/07/2022 from Baroness Goldie to Lord Burnett of Maldon regarding progress on the recommendations

No description available

The House of Lords Constitution Committee publishes a report calling for urgent reform to strengthen Parliament's scrutiny of treaties. The Committee describes the current parliamentary processes of treaty scrutiny as limited, anachronistic and inadequate, and recommends the establishment of a new treaty scrutiny committee.

All Lord Chief Justice publications

The Government's plan to review the impact of EVEL this autumn should not be seen as a final judgement on the procedures since it is too soon to assess fully their impact on the Union. The Committee states that if the EVEL procedures are retained, it should be on a trial basis until the end of the current Parliament.

The Committee is conducting a large-scale inquiry into the legislative process to follow its 2004 report on Parliament and the Legislative Process. The inquiry is being conducted in four stages:

• Preparing legislation for introduction in Parliament
• The Passage of legislation through Parliament
• The delegation of powers; and
• After Royal Assent

Call for Evidence: Improving Parliament's scrutiny of Bills

The Committee's report states that legislation is necessary to ensure legal continuity and certainty when the United Kingdom leaves the European Union. The Committee does not comment on the merits of Brexit, but concludes that the Bill, as drafted, has fundamental flaws of a constitutional nature.

All House of Lords Appointments Commission publications

The Constitution Committee conducted a short follow-up inquiry to its report on Judicial Appointments, published on 28 March 2012. The report made a number of recommendations to improve the judicial appointments process.

• Report: Judicial Appointments (HTML)
• Report: Judicial Appointments (PDF)
• Report: Judicial Appointments: follow-up (HTML)
• Report: Judicial Appointments: follow-up (PDF)
• Government Response: Judicial Appointments: follow-up

The Committee published its follow-up report on 2 November 2017

All Minister for the Constitution publications

Since the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the role of the Lord Chancellor has changed significantly. For this inquiry, the committee explored the role and responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor, as distinct from those of the Secretary of State for Justice. The committee examined the criteria for appointment as Lord Chancellor and also explored the future of the office.

• Report: The office of Lord Chancellor (PDF)
• Evidence: The office of Lord Chancellor
• Government response: The office of Lord Chancellor
• Hansard: read debate on the office of Lord Chancellor, 7 July 2015
• Parliament TV: watch debate on the office of Lord Chancellor, 7 July 2015

The inquiry followed the report of the Smith Commission on further devolution to Scotland and the plans for further devolution to Wales and Northern Ireland. The Committee considered how current inter-governmental relations could be improved and how Parliament could best scrutinise these arrangements. While the inquiry's focus was on Scotland, the Committee also welcomed evidence on the UK Government's relations with the Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive.

• Report: Inter-governmental relations in the UK (PDF)
• Evidence: Inter-governmental relations in the UK

All Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Justice publications

All President and Deputy President of the Supreme Court publications

The Constitution Committee's report on the Union and devolution warns that successive UK Governments have taken the Union between England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales for granted, without giving proper consideration to the cumulative impact of devolution on the UK as a whole. The Committee believes that the nations of the UK are stronger together than apart. Any future devolution must not be at the expense of the stability, coherence and viability of the Union.

The Government introduced a Bill proposing fixed–term Parliaments in July 2010. The Committee have produced a report on the issue in time to influence the debate on the Bill in the House of Lords.

An invitation for written submissions on this inquiry was published on 15 July 2010. The report and other related items can be viewed below:

• Letter from the Chairman to Mark Harper MP on the Government Response, 7 March 2011
  Government Response
• Fixed-term Parliaments report, HL Paper 69
• Written Evidence
• Call for Evidence
• YouTube Video: Baroness Jay (Chairman) talks about priorities for the inquiry and invites submissions for evidence

• Government Response to the Committee's 12th Report on the Cabinet Manual, HL Paper 107
• The Cabinet Manual, 12th Report, HL Paper 107

The document was open to public consultation until 8 March 2011, and the Government stated that they would welcome comments from the relevant committees of Parliament.

The Constitution Committee therefore decided to hear evidence from expert members of the House of Lords (including former Secretaries of State, former Cabinet Secretaries and academic experts) on the aim and constitutional status of the Manual, as well as on some of the specific issues to which the Draft Cabinet Manual refers. The evidence will inform the Committee’s response to the consultation, published as a Committee report.

Further material relating to the Inquiry:

• Institute for Government submission from Rt Hon Peter Riddell, Senior Fellow
  

In the years since that report was published, constitutional reform has continued apace.

The Committee has decided that it is time to revisit the issue and consider the process of constitutional reform and how it can be improved.

• Call for Evidence
• Oral evidence and associated written evidence
• Written evidence

The Committee invites interested organisations and individuals to submit written evidence as part of its inquiry. Written evidence should reach the Committee as soon as possible and no later than 31 March 2011.

Inquiry into the judicial appointments process for the courts and tribunals of England and Wales and Northern Ireland (including first instance courts) and for the UK Supreme Court.

The call for evidence can be viewed below. The deadline for submissions was 30 June 2011.

• Call for Evidence
• Note for the witness on the scope of the inquiry

There appears to be a consensus that all judicial appointments should be made on merit and that the process should respect the constitutional principle of the independence of the judiciary. Beyond this, there is a range of questions including achieving greater diversity of those selected, ensuring appropriate accountability and transparency, the efficiency and effectiveness of the appointments systems, and the respective roles of the independent selection commissions, ministers, the judiciary and Parliament.

The Committee will ask whether the appointments system is fair, independent, transparent and open.

• It will examine a range of questions including the following.
• Does the judicial appointments process secure an independent judiciary?
• Should Parliament scrutinise judicial appointments?
• How can public understanding of the appointments process be improved?
• Is the system based on merit?
• Do we have a sufficiently diverse judiciary?

The accountability of the government to Parliament is governed by the convention of individual ministerial responsibility. Under this convention, civil servants are responsible to ministers, and ministers in turn are responsible to Parliament.

However, this convention has become subject to a number of criticisms, generally on the grounds that it is no longer an effective means of holding the government fully to account, and that it does not adequately reflect the distribution of power and responsibility between ministers, civil servants and special advisers.

Questions the Committee will consider include:

• Does the convention of individual ministerial responsibility remain the most appropriate and effective way of holding the government to account? If not what should replace it?
• Do the civil servants’ and special advisors’ codes of conduct require amendment? Should they be set out in statute?
• What influence, if any, should ministers be able to exercise over civil service appointments?
• To what extent does the civil service act as a constitutional check on the actions of ministers?
• Are there any circumstances in which civil servants should be directly accountable to Parliament? Could that risk the politicisation of the civil service?
• Should the Osmotherly Rules, covering civil servants and their relationships with parliamentary select committees, be redrafted?
• What is the influence exercised by special advisors both in theory and in practice?
• What are the current accountability mechanisms for special advisors? Is there a case for increasing their accountability to Parliament?
• Are the accountability mechanisms for non-ministerial departments effective? Where should the balance lie between accountability and independence?

The call for evidence can be viewed below. The deadline for submissions was Friday 8 June 2012.

• Call for Evidence

Public hearings were held in May, June and July. The Committee published its report on 20 November 2012.

• Call for Evidence (pdf)

It is a well-known constitutional principle that Parliament makes laws, and the Government executes those laws. Strictly read, this might imply that the Government should take no action on a bill unless and until it has received the Royal Assent. However, it is generally recognised that, in the interests of effective administration, the Government should be able to undertake some preparatory work in advance of a bill’s enactment.

The extent to which the Government ought to pre-empt Parliament by undertaking preparatory work is a matter of constitutional importance.

The Committee would welcome written submissions on any aspect of this topic, and particularly on the following questions:

Overview: the constitutional framework

• To what extent is it constitutionally and legally appropriate for the Government to use its pre-existing powers to act in anticipation of the enactment of bills?
• Are conventions a suitable mechanism for regulating government action or expenditure in advance of legislation? If not, what is the most appropriate alternative?

Government expenditure in advance of legislation

• Are the Government correct to assert the existence of a “second reading convention” whereby expenditure on preparatory work may be incurred once a bill has been given its second reading by the House of Commons? If so, what is the content of this convention?
• If the convention exists, is it properly observed by the Government?
• Is it appropriate for the Government to regard Commons second reading as granting a sufficient parliamentary mandate for expenditure? Is this properly understood and taken into consideration by the House of Commons during second reading debates?
• What is the situation as regards the House of Lords? What about bills that start in the Lords (such as the Public Bodies Bill)?
• Are there other conventions, either in existence or developing, in the area of government expenditure or action in advance of legislation?

Organisational change in advance of legislation

• In what circumstances is it appropriate for the Government to change the structure of an organisation in the expectation that legislation will be passed?
• Where organisational change is appropriate, what degree of change should be permitted? Are there any particular types of organisational alteration that should never be undertaken in advance of legislation?

An invitation for written submissions to this inquiry was published on 13 December 2012. The deadline for submissions is Friday 18 January 2013.

In 2006 the House of Lords Constitution Committee published a report on Parliament’s role in authorising the use of armed force overseas. It recommended that a convention be created whereby the Government should seek parliamentary approval if they are proposing to deploy British troops into actual or potential armed conflict overseas. Despite various initiatives in the years following that report, no action has been taken to bring any such proposal into effect. The Constitution Committee decided to look again at the constitutional arrangements for the use of armed force overseas.

• Report: Constitutional arrangements for the use of armed force
• Evidence: Constitutional arrangements for the use of armed force
• Government response: Constitutional arrangements for the use of armed force
• Hansard: Read debate on the Constitutional arrangements for the use of armed force, 28 November 2013

In recent decades the nature of party politics in the UK has changed considerably. The 2010 general election produced a hung parliament and the first peacetime coalition government since the 1930's.

It may be that government otherwise than by a single party with a Commons majority will become more common in future; the constitutional implications of this change, however, have not been fully explored.

The Constitution Committee conducted an inquiry into the constitutional implications of coalition government.

• Report: Constitutional implications of coalition government
• Evidence volume: Constitutional implications of coalition government
• Government response: Constitutional implications of coalition government
• Hansard: Read debate on the constitutional implications of coalition government, 13 May 2014

No description available

Photographic voter ID was used for the first time in England in the May 2023 local elections. The Committee is conducting a short inquiry into the impact of the introduction of voter ID and lessons to be learned ahead of the next local elections in May 2024 and the forthcoming general election.

Found: Post Of fice (Horizon System) Of fences (Scotland) Bill, SB 24-25 10Those raising concerns included Lord