1-20 of 144 results for subject:"Appellate Committee"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.297 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.004 seconds
- Search query
- subject:"Appellate Committee"
- We searched for
- subject_t:"Appellate Committee" OR subject_t:"Appellate Committee (HL)" OR subject_ses:1625
Type
-
Early day motions (1)
+
Members' contributions (62)
-
Oral answers to questions (9)
-
Oral questions (9)
-
Proceeding contributions (44)
+
Parliamentary committees (7)
+
Committee proceedings (4)
-
Committee of the Whole House (HC) (2)
-
Committee of the Whole House (HL) (1)
-
Select Committee oral evidence (1)
-
Select Committee reports (3)
+
Parliamentary papers (12)
-
Command papers (3)
-
Consultation papers (1)
-
Deposited papers (5)
-
House of Commons papers (1)
-
House of Lords papers (3)
+
Parliamentary proceedings (37)
+
Debates (10)
+
Committee proceedings (4)
-
Committee of the Whole House (HC) (2)
-
Committee of the Whole House (HL) (1)
-
Select Committee oral evidence (1)
+
Legislative debates (8)
-
Debates on bills (8)
+
Formal proceedings (3)
-
Non-legislative formal proceedings (3)
+
Statements (22)
+
Oral statements (12)
-
Ministerial statements (11)
-
Written statements (10)
-
Urgent questions (1)
+
Parliamentary questions (41)
-
Oral questions (9)
-
Urgent questions (1)
-
Written questions (31)
+
Research briefings (2)
-
Commons Briefing papers (2)
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
More
Primary member
More
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
Learn more about the UK Supreme Court, how it came into existence, and why it replaced the House of Lords as the UK's highest court.
Learn more about the UK Supreme Court, how it came into existence, and why it replaced the House of Lords as the UK's highest court.
By
David Torrance; Graeme Cowie
Type
Commons Briefing papers
Legislation
Constitutional Reform Act 2005
Subjects
Disciplinary proceedings; House of Lords; Judiciary; Public appointments; Appellate Committee; Supreme Court; Lord Chancellor; Privy Council Office Judicial Committee; Judicial Conduct Investigations Office
Date
1 October 2024
Reference
CBP-9536
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will (a) repeal the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and (b) re-establish the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will (a) repeal the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and (b) re-establish the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords.
Asked by
Andrew Rosindell
(Conservative)
Answered by
Mike Freer
(Conservative)
Answering body
Ministry of Justice
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
30 November 2023
For answer on
4 December 2023
Answered on
8 December 2023
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 provided for the Supreme Court to assume the jurisdiction of the Appellate Committee, established the independent Judicial Appointments Commission, and shared responsibilities for the administration of justice between the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. The Act is therefore the statutory basis of a broad sweep of constitutional matters, and it continues to underpin relationships with the judicial branch of the state.
It is not a current priority to review the arrangements that resulted from the 2005 Act or to assess whether further legislative changes might be necessary. The Supreme Court is rightly held in high esteem not just within the UK but also overseas, and the Lord Chancellor remains committed to maintaining an effective partnership with the judiciary within the legal framework the Act created.
Legislation
Constitutional Reform Act 2005
Subjects
House of Lords; Appellate Committee
Date
8 December 2023
Reference
4658
House
House of Commons
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. The House will recall the unusual circumstances in which we passed the control order legislation five years ago after an all-night sitting. Do the Government have any alternative plan—plan B, as it were—if Parliament decides not to renew the legislation when it comes up for renewal next month? If so, could the Minister let us know what that plan is?
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. The House will recall the unusual circumstances in which we passed the control order legislation five years ago after an all-night sitting. Do the Government have any alternative plan—plan B, as it were—if Parliament decides not to renew the legislation when it comes up for renewal next month? If so, could the Minister let us know what that plan is?
Asked by
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
(Crossbench)
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
3 February 2010
My Lords, this House has gone over the control order issue at length and there have been numerous Questions on it. None of us likes control orders. I did not like them when I came into post and I specifically asked whether there was any way of getting round them. A detailed study into this was done by the Security Service—SO15 OSCT—and control orders were the least worst option. There are a very small number of them—12, according to the last quoted figure and fewer than that now. We use them on a carefully selected basis.
I believe that they are necessary for the security of the nation. We do not like them and we have a lot of safeguards in place. Three High Court judgments have upheld individual control orders since the House of Lords judgment. Mr Justice Wilkie said of one of the cases that there was overwhelming evidence of past involvement in terrorism-related activity and future intentions to be so involved. It would be remiss of our Government not to look after the security of our nation. Control orders are absolutely necessary and I will fight tooth and nail to keep them because there is no easy alternative at the moment.
Subjects
Anti-terrorism control orders; House of Lords; Judgements; Appellate Committee
Date
3 February 2010
Reference
717 c194
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, all the time we are looking at threats, possible threats and what might happen. It would be foolhardy of me to say on the Floor of the House what we would do. Clearly, we would ensure the safety of the nation. It might cost a huge amount more, and take a great deal more effort, and it might mean we could not be quite so sure of our safety, but that is what we would do.
My Lords, all the time we are looking at threats, possible threats and what might happen. It would be foolhardy of me to say on the Floor of the House what we would do. Clearly, we would ensure the safety of the nation. It might cost a huge amount more, and take a great deal more effort, and it might mean we could not be quite so sure of our safety, but that is what we would do.
Answered by
Lord West of Spithead
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Elton
(Conservative)
Type
Oral answers to questions
Nevertheless, the noble and learned Lord, in his supplementary question, asked about the Government’s plan B. I did not hear an answer: do they not have one?
Subjects
House of Lords; Judgements; Appellate Committee; Anti-terrorism control orders
Date
3 February 2010
Reference
717 c195
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, this House has gone over the control order issue at length and there have been numerous Questions on it. None of us likes control orders. I did not like them when I came into post and I specifically asked whether there was any way of getting round them. A detailed study into this was done by the Security Service—SO15 OSCT—and control orders were the least worst option. There are a very small number of them—12, according to the last quoted figure and fewer than that now. We use them on a carefully selected basis.
I believe that they are necessary for the security of the nation. We do not like them and we have a lot of safeguards in place. Three High Court judgments have upheld individual control orders since the House of Lords judgment. Mr Justice Wilkie said of one of the cases that there was overwhelming evidence of past involvement in terrorism-related activity and future intentions to be so involved. It would be remiss of our Government not to look after the security of our nation. Control orders are absolutely necessary and I will fight tooth and nail to keep them because there is no easy alternative at the moment.
My Lords, this House has gone over the control order issue at length and there have been numerous Questions on it. None of us likes control orders. I did not like them when I came into post and I specifically asked whether there was any way of getting round them. A detailed study into this was done by the Security Service—SO15 OSCT—and control orders were the least worst option. There are a very small number of them—12, according to the last quoted figure and fewer than that now. We use them on a carefully selected basis.
I believe that they are necessary for the security of the nation. We do not like them and we have a lot of safeguards in place. Three High Court judgments have upheld individual control orders since the House of Lords judgment. Mr Justice Wilkie said of one of the cases that there was overwhelming evidence of past involvement in terrorism-related activity and future intentions to be so involved. It would be remiss of our Government not to look after the security of our nation. Control orders are absolutely necessary and I will fight tooth and nail to keep them because there is no easy alternative at the moment.
Answered by
Lord West of Spithead
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
(Crossbench)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. The House will recall the unusual circumstances in which we passed the control order legislation five years ago after an all-night sitting. Do the Government have any alternative plan—plan B, as it were—if Parliament decides not to renew the legislation when it comes up for renewal next month? If so, could the Minister let us know what that plan is?
Subjects
House of Lords; Judgements; Appellate Committee; Anti-terrorism control orders
Date
3 February 2010
Reference
717 c194
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I would not accept that that is the way we go about it. We look at this all the time: we have very good methods of scrutiny of control orders and we go through many checks to make sure that they are looked at properly. I do not accept that we do it by pushing to the boundary and then waiting for a court to push it back. That is not the way we go about it.
My Lords, I would not accept that that is the way we go about it. We look at this all the time: we have very good methods of scrutiny of control orders and we go through many checks to make sure that they are looked at properly. I do not accept that we do it by pushing to the boundary and then waiting for a court to push it back. That is not the way we go about it.
Answered by
Lord West of Spithead
(Labour)
Asked by
Baroness Hamwee
(Liberal Democrat)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, is the Minister happy with the Government’s approach to legislation and to its implementation? The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has not been uncritical of the implementation and detail of control orders. The approach seems to be to push at the boundaries and wait to see whether the courts knock them back.
Subjects
House of Lords; Judgements; Appellate Committee; Anti-terrorism control orders
Date
3 February 2010
Reference
717 c195
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, does the Minister recollect that in the earlier case, the appeal of MB, which came before the Appellate Committee, the majority of the committee, of whom I was one—I declare that as an interest—favoured an approach that would have admitted some flexibility and the application of the concept of reasonableness in the spirit of the common law; but that a subsequent decision of the European Court of Human Rights directed that a rigid rule be adopted, with the consequence that in the AF case, the Appellate Committee felt compelled, although some had some reluctance, to decide as it did? Have the Government any thoughts about a way around that impasse?
My Lords, does the Minister recollect that in the earlier case, the appeal of MB, which came before the Appellate Committee, the majority of the committee, of whom I was one—I declare that as an interest—favoured an approach that would have admitted some flexibility and the application of the concept of reasonableness in the spirit of the common law; but that a subsequent decision of the European Court of Human Rights directed that a rigid rule be adopted, with the consequence that in the AF case, the Appellate Committee felt compelled, although some had some reluctance, to decide as it did? Have the Government any thoughts about a way around that impasse?
Asked by
Lord Carswell
(Crossbench)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
3 February 2010
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that interjection. He is absolutely right. The quote from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, was very interesting. He agreed that the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in A v United Kingdom requires these appeals to be allowed, but stated: ""I do so with very considerable regret, because I think that the decision of the ECHR was wrong and that it may well destroy the system of control orders which is a significant part of this country's defences"."
Have we been able to think of a way around it? The answer is no. I am constantly meeting the control order team, because I do not like the orders. None of us in our party or in this House likes them; but I believe that they are necessary, and that is why they are there. We are constantly looking for some other way of achieving this.
Subjects
House of Lords; Judgements; Appellate Committee; Anti-terrorism control orders
Date
3 February 2010
Reference
717 c195-6
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
Is it not a fact that the judgments from the Court at Strasbourg are not binding on courts in this country—they have to be taken into account, but are not binding—and that the final court of appeal in this country is the Supreme Court? The European Convention on Human Rights cannot, and the 1998 Act did not, prevent this Parliament, if so advised, passing legislation which is incompatible with one of the convention articles, provided that the intention of Parliament is made clear by an appropriate statement of incompatibility from the promoting Minister, in which case the courts will be bound to accept the legislation as it stands. That nettle has not been grasped by the Government.
Is it not a fact that the judgments from the Court at Strasbourg are not binding on courts in this country—they have to be taken into account, but are not binding—and that the final court of appeal in this country is the Supreme Court? The European Convention on Human Rights cannot, and the 1998 Act did not, prevent this Parliament, if so advised, passing legislation which is incompatible with one of the convention articles, provided that the intention of Parliament is made clear by an appropriate statement of incompatibility from the promoting Minister, in which case the courts will be bound to accept the legislation as it stands. That nettle has not been grasped by the Government.
Asked by
Lord Scott of Foscote
(Crossbench)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
3 February 2010
My Lords, I might get myself into a difficult legal argument on this. I now understand why 80 per cent of the cost involved in control orders is legal costs. It is due to the complexity.
Subjects
House of Lords; Judgements; Appellate Committee; Anti-terrorism control orders
Date
3 February 2010
Reference
717 c196
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in his capacity as the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, that there is no readily available alternative to control orders? Is he also aware of the interesting document on national security published by the Conservative Party, in which it, too, acknowledge that the best that the party can offer as an alternative is to review the system with a view to reducing reliance on it—which, as I understand it, is the Government’s policy?
My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in his capacity as the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, that there is no readily available alternative to control orders? Is he also aware of the interesting document on national security published by the Conservative Party, in which it, too, acknowledge that the best that the party can offer as an alternative is to review the system with a view to reducing reliance on it—which, as I understand it, is the Government’s policy?
Asked by
Lord Harris of Haringey
(Labour)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
3 February 2010
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who is the independent reviewer, stated, ""it is my view and advice that abandoning the control orders system entirely would have a damaging effect on national security"."
He went on to emphasise that he had considered the effects of the court decisions on disclosure and did not agree that the effect was to make control orders impossible.
My noble friend is absolutely right that we constantly review this issue. I am very hard on people, when they try to come up with a control order, to see that it is absolutely necessary. It is interesting that those in the party opposite, who earlier said that they were going to get rid of these things, have, amazingly, slightly changed their view—which is much more sensible, because all of us are interested in the security of our nation.
Subjects
House of Lords; Judgements; Appellate Committee; Anti-terrorism control orders
Date
3 February 2010
Reference
717 c195
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I might get myself into a difficult legal argument on this. I now understand why 80 per cent of the cost involved in control orders is legal costs. It is due to the complexity.
My Lords, I might get myself into a difficult legal argument on this. I now understand why 80 per cent of the cost involved in control orders is legal costs. It is due to the complexity.
Answered by
Lord West of Spithead
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Scott of Foscote
(Crossbench)
Type
Oral answers to questions
Is it not a fact that the judgments from the Court at Strasbourg are not binding on courts in this country—they have to be taken into account, but are not binding—and that the final court of appeal in this country is the Supreme Court? The European Convention on Human Rights cannot, and the 1998 Act did not, prevent this Parliament, if so advised, passing legislation which is incompatible with one of the convention articles, provided that the intention of Parliament is made clear by an appropriate statement of incompatibility from the promoting Minister, in which case the courts will be bound to accept the legislation as it stands. That nettle has not been grasped by the Government.
Subjects
House of Lords; Judgements; Appellate Committee; Anti-terrorism control orders
Date
3 February 2010
Reference
717 c196
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, is the Minister happy with the Government’s approach to legislation and to its implementation? The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has not been uncritical of the implementation and detail of control orders. The approach seems to be to push at the boundaries and wait to see whether the courts knock them back.
My Lords, is the Minister happy with the Government’s approach to legislation and to its implementation? The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has not been uncritical of the implementation and detail of control orders. The approach seems to be to push at the boundaries and wait to see whether the courts knock them back.
Asked by
Baroness Hamwee
(Liberal Democrat)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
3 February 2010
My Lords, I would not accept that that is the way we go about it. We look at this all the time: we have very good methods of scrutiny of control orders and we go through many checks to make sure that they are looked at properly. I do not accept that we do it by pushing to the boundary and then waiting for a court to push it back. That is not the way we go about it.
Subjects
House of Lords; Judgements; Appellate Committee; Anti-terrorism control orders
Date
3 February 2010
Reference
717 c195
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
Nevertheless, the noble and learned Lord, in his supplementary question, asked about the Government’s plan B. I did not hear an answer: do they not have one?
Nevertheless, the noble and learned Lord, in his supplementary question, asked about the Government’s plan B. I did not hear an answer: do they not have one?
Asked by
Lord Elton
(Conservative)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
3 February 2010
My Lords, all the time we are looking at threats, possible threats and what might happen. It would be foolhardy of me to say on the Floor of the House what we would do. Clearly, we would ensure the safety of the nation. It might cost a huge amount more, and take a great deal more effort, and it might mean we could not be quite so sure of our safety, but that is what we would do.
Subjects
House of Lords; Judgements; Appellate Committee; Anti-terrorism control orders
Date
3 February 2010
Reference
717 c195
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that interjection. He is absolutely right. The quote from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, was very interesting. He agreed that the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in A v United Kingdom requires these appeals to be allowed, but stated: ""I do so with very considerable regret, because I think that the decision of the ECHR was wrong and that it may well destroy the system of control orders which is a significant part of this country's defences"."
Have we been able to think of a way around it? The answer is no. I am constantly meeting the control order team, because I do not like the orders. None of us in our party or in this House likes them; but I believe that they are necessary, and that is why they are there. We are constantly looking for some other way of achieving this.
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that interjection. He is absolutely right. The quote from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, was very interesting. He agreed that the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in A v United Kingdom requires these appeals to be allowed, but stated: ""I do so with very considerable regret, because I think that the decision of the ECHR was wrong and that it may well destroy the system of control orders which is a significant part of this country's defences"."
Have we been able to think of a way around it? The answer is no. I am constantly meeting the control order team, because I do not like the orders. None of us in our party or in this House likes them; but I believe that they are necessary, and that is why they are there. We are constantly looking for some other way of achieving this.
Answered by
Lord West of Spithead
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Carswell
(Crossbench)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, does the Minister recollect that in the earlier case, the appeal of MB, which came before the Appellate Committee, the majority of the committee, of whom I was one—I declare that as an interest—favoured an approach that would have admitted some flexibility and the application of the concept of reasonableness in the spirit of the common law; but that a subsequent decision of the European Court of Human Rights directed that a rigid rule be adopted, with the consequence that in the AF case, the Appellate Committee felt compelled, although some had some reluctance, to decide as it did? Have the Government any thoughts about a way around that impasse?
Subjects
House of Lords; Judgements; Appellate Committee; Anti-terrorism control orders
Date
3 February 2010
Reference
717 c195-6
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who is the independent reviewer, stated, ""it is my view and advice that abandoning the control orders system entirely would have a damaging effect on national security"."
He went on to emphasise that he had considered the effects of the court decisions on disclosure and did not agree that the effect was to make control orders impossible.
My noble friend is absolutely right that we constantly review this issue. I am very hard on people, when they try to come up with a control order, to see that it is absolutely necessary. It is interesting that those in the party opposite, who earlier said that they were going to get rid of these things, have, amazingly, slightly changed their view—which is much more sensible, because all of us are interested in the security of our nation.
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who is the independent reviewer, stated, ""it is my view and advice that abandoning the control orders system entirely would have a damaging effect on national security"."
He went on to emphasise that he had considered the effects of the court decisions on disclosure and did not agree that the effect was to make control orders impossible.
My noble friend is absolutely right that we constantly review this issue. I am very hard on people, when they try to come up with a control order, to see that it is absolutely necessary. It is interesting that those in the party opposite, who earlier said that they were going to get rid of these things, have, amazingly, slightly changed their view—which is much more sensible, because all of us are interested in the security of our nation.
Answered by
Lord West of Spithead
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Harris of Haringey
(Labour)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in his capacity as the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, that there is no readily available alternative to control orders? Is he also aware of the interesting document on national security published by the Conservative Party, in which it, too, acknowledge that the best that the party can offer as an alternative is to review the system with a view to reducing reliance on it—which, as I understand it, is the Government’s policy?
Subjects
House of Lords; Judgements; Appellate Committee; Anti-terrorism control orders
Date
3 February 2010
Reference
717 c195
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, the Government do not have any plans for phasing out control orders.
My Lords, the Government do not have any plans for phasing out control orders.
Answered by
Lord West of Spithead
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
(Crossbench)
Type
Oral answers to questions
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have for phasing out control orders in the light of the unanimous decision of nine Lords of Appeal in Ordinary in Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF (No. 3).
Subjects
House of Lords; Judgements; Appellate Committee; Anti-terrorism control orders
Date
3 February 2010
Reference
717 c194
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have for phasing out control orders in the light of the unanimous decision of nine Lords of Appeal in Ordinary in Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF (No. 3).
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have for phasing out control orders in the light of the unanimous decision of nine Lords of Appeal in Ordinary in Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF (No. 3).
Asked by
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
(Crossbench)
Answered by
Lord West of Spithead
(Labour)
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
For answer on
3 February 2010
Answered on
3 February 2010
My Lords, the Government do not have any plans for phasing out control orders.
Subjects
House of Lords; Judgements; Appellate Committee; Anti-terrorism control orders
Date
3 February 2010
Reference
717 c194
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I rise on behalf of the Opposition to wholeheartedly support the resolution that has been put before us by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, but she might forgive me if it is not entirely with the same spirit of enthusiasm. For me, this day is...
My Lords, I rise on behalf of the Opposition to wholeheartedly support the resolution that has been put before us by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, but she might forgive me if it is not entirely with the same spirit of enthusiasm. For me, this day is...
Member
Lord Strathclyde
(Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Subjects
Appeals; House of Lords; Judges; Peers; Supreme Court; Appellate Committee
Date
21 July 2009
Reference
712 c1509-11
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
That, in view of the establishment of the United Kingdom Supreme Court on 1 October, this House thinks it right to record its appreciation of the contribution made to the work of this House by all those who have assisted the House or served in the House in a judicial...
That, in view of the establishment of the United Kingdom Supreme Court on 1 October, this House thinks it right to record its appreciation of the contribution made to the work of this House by all those who have assisted the House or served in the House in a judicial...
Member
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
(Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Subjects
Appeals; House of Lords; Judges; Peers; Supreme Court; Appellate Committee
Date
21 July 2009
Reference
712 c1507
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I pay tribute to the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, and to the judicial work of the House of Lords, on this historic day when we mark the move by the Law Lords from this House. This is a significant day for this House, and a sad one...
My Lords, I pay tribute to the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, and to the judicial work of the House of Lords, on this historic day when we mark the move by the Law Lords from this House. This is a significant day for this House, and a sad one...
Member
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
(Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Subjects
Appeals; House of Lords; Judges; Peers; Supreme Court; Appellate Committee
Date
21 July 2009
Reference
712 c1507-9
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
Lords debate on motion that, in view of the establishment of the United Kingdom Supreme Court on 1 October, this House thinks it right to record its appreciation of the contribution made to the work of this House by all those who have assisted the House or served in the House in a judicial capcity; and by the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and other Law Lords since the passge of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876. Agreed to on question.
Lords debate on motion that, in view of the establishment of the United Kingdom Supreme Court on 1 October, this House thinks it right to record its appreciation of the contribution made to the work of this House by all those who have assisted the House or served in the...
Lead member
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
Answering member
Lord Strathclyde
Department
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
Type
Debates
Subjects
Appeals; House of Lords; Judges; Peers; Supreme Court; Appellate Committee
Date
21 July 2009
Reference
712 c1507-17
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords