Skip to main content

1-20 of 328 results for subject:"Online Procedure Rule Committee"

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

More

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his Department's policy paper entitled AI action plan for justice, published on 31 July 2025, what progress he has made with with the Online Procedure Rule Committee to ensure that AI-enabled digital justice services are (a) coherent, (b) user-centred...

Asked by
Ben Obese-Jecty (Conservative)
Answering body
Ministry of Justice
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Date
20 October 2025
Reference
79562
House
House of Commons

My Lords, this instrument will specify proceedings for which the Online Procedure Rule Committee can make rules. The OPRC, established under the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022, aims to modernise the civil, family and tribunal jurisdictions by developing rules governing the practice and procedure for specific types of online...

Member
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Labour; Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 March 2025
Reference
844 cc1102-320GC
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful introduction to these proposed regulations. We on these Benches support the introduction of digital procedures, certainly where they can be introduced without any adverse impact on the fairness, transparency and user-friendliness of the procedures as a whole. We agree...

Member
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 March 2025
Reference
844 cc320-1GC
House
House of Lords

I thank the noble Lord for his support. I am able to give him the assurances that he is looking for. He is right to say that the OPRC will continue to make rules as the use of digitisation in the court system continues to develop. The point that he...

Member
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Labour; Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 March 2025
Reference
844 c321GC
House
House of Lords

Lords motion to consider. Agreed to on question.

Lead member
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
Department
Ministry of Justice
Type
Debates on delegated legislation
Date
17 March 2025
Reference
844 cc1102-321GC
House
House of Lords

Motion to consider. Agreed to on question.

Lead member
Sarah Sackman
Answering member
Kieran Mullan
Department
Ministry of Justice
Type
Debates on delegated legislation; Delegated Legislation Committee proceedings
Committee
First Delegated Legislation Committee
Date
17 March 2025
House
House of Commons
Type
Select Committee written evidence; Parliamentary committees
Committee
Justice Committee
Date
25 February 2025
House
House of Commons
Laid by
Secretary Shabana Mahmood
Department
Ministry of Justice
Type
Statutory instruments
Date
29 January 2025
Reference
SI 2025/536; 2025/
House
House of Commons; House of Lords
Type
Select Committee written evidence; Parliamentary committees
Committee
Justice Committee
Date
19 June 2023
House
House of Commons

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

Member
James Cartlidge (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 April 2022
Reference
712 c601
House
House of Commons

I begin by discussing some of the key changes made to the Bill in the other place as a result of amendments brought forward by the Government and I will then turn to the other Lords amendments. Since we last debated the Bill, further measures have been added by the...

Member
James Cartlidge (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 April 2022
Reference
712 cc601-3
House
House of Commons

I thank those who have worked to improve this Bill during its progress through both Houses. Without embarrassing him, I would single out my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), who volunteered to lead on the courts part of this Bill—that is, most of it—before he had...

Member
Andy Slaughter (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 April 2022
Reference
712 cc602-6
House
House of Commons

It is a pleasure to follow the Front-Bench speakers in this short but important debate. I welcome the Government’s stance on presumption and their acceptance of the amendment made in the Lords. It is worth remembering that Lord Faulks, who chaired the independent review that gave rise to all these...

Member
Robert Neill (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 April 2022
Reference
712 cc419-608
House
House of Commons

I will speak briefly about the parts that apply to Scotland, which are significant and potentially extremely damaging to people’s rights to access justice. Because Scotland is currently compelled to do as we are told as part of this Union—we do not have the normal powers of a normal independent...

Member
Anne McLaughlin (Scottish National Party)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 April 2022
Reference
712 c420
House
House of Commons

I wonder whether the hon. Lady is making an argument that contradicts her previous one. On the one hand, she said that she does not want retrospective quashing orders to be available to a judge to make a decision on, and the other hand, she argued that judges

should be...

Member
Caroline Johnson (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 April 2022
Reference
712 c420
House
House of Commons

We have had this discussion so many times before. The hon. Member needs to go and look up the meaning of the word “presumption”.

Lords amendment 5 is about Cart judicial review—in Scotland, it is Eba judicial review. The amendment would insert a new clause to enable appeals of an upper...

Member
Anne McLaughlin (Scottish National Party)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 April 2022
Reference
712 cc610-1
House
House of Commons

I rise to speak chiefly to part 1 of the Bill. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin), and I listened with great care to her speech. She and her colleagues often accuse the Prime Minister of wanting to have his...

Member
Robert Buckland (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 April 2022
Reference
712 c611
House
House of Commons

Does the right hon. and learned Member not understand that Members who support the system of an unelected Chamber and put people into it—the Scottish National party does not—are the ones who are being hypocritical when they then criticise it? I operate within the existing system, but I am trying

notus-xml...

Member
Anne McLaughlin (Scottish National Party)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 April 2022
Reference
712 c611
House
House of Commons

I am grateful to the hon. Lady; her comments show the value of interventions, because we can have a genuine debate about a very important issue that goes to the heart of Lords amendments. My concern about the Lords amendments to clauses 1 and 2 is that their effect would...

Member
Robert Buckland (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 April 2022
Reference
712 cc612-4
House
House of Commons

I rise to speak to Lords amendments 1, 2 and 3, all tabled by Lord Marks in the other place. I appreciate that the Government have made some concessions and I thank the Minister for his meeting with me.

Amendments 1, 2 and 3 would remove from the Bill the power...

Member
Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 April 2022
Reference
712 c614
House
House of Commons