Home / Sources / Select Committees / Constitution Committee / Constitutional Reform Process
Select committee: Constitution Committee

Constitutional Reform Process

Closed Opened 16 Feb 2011 Closed 16 Feb 2011

Constitution Committee Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗

Inquiry scope (the committee's words)
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.

Where it stands

The inquiry is closed, opened 16 February 2011.

The committee has published 1 report, most recently 15th Report - The Process of Constitutional Change on 18 July 2011.

The government's response

Published 17 September 2014.

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.

The Government agrees with the Committee on one point about leapfrog appeals but maintains its position on the judicial review reforms in clauses 70 and 73 to 76, disagreeing that they risk the rule of law or limit access to justice.

  • On leapfrog appeals, the Government agrees with the Committee's alternative suggestion that it is "appropriate to leave such matters to the judiciary", so clauses 54 to 57 do not require the parties' views to be sought.
  • It will invite the Civil Procedure Rule Committee to consider what provision might be appropriate in Rules, and says it would be wrong to pre-empt that consideration.
  • On clause 70, the Government says "highly likely" is still a high threshold and does not agree that the clause results in a significant risk that substantially unlawful action will go unremedied.
  • On interveners and costs capping orders, it does not consider that clauses 73 to 76 limit access to justice, and says it is "looking seriously" at how to help interveners consider cost implications.

Read the government's response ↗ Report an error

Reports

All reports

Recent activity

Reports

1 report