Found: Clause 57 LORD BIRT LORD THOMAS OF CWMGIEDD LORD PANNICK LORD BURNS 58_ Clause 57, page 47, line

Found: Clause 10 LORD BIRT LORD THOMAS OF CWMGIEDD LORD PANNICK LORD BURNS 21_ Clause 10, page 6, line

Found: and including 7 March 2025 [Amendments marked ★ are new or have been altered] Clause 1 LORD THOMAS OF CWMGIEDD

Found: “, including its global appeal” 5 Football Governance Bill [HL] LORD BIRT LORD THOMAS OF CWMGIEDD

Found: was formally tabled in the House of Lords by Baroness Morgan of Cotes and co signed by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd

Found: was formally tabled in the House of Lords by Baroness Morgan of Cotes and co signed by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd

Found: consultation. 5 Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] After Clause 4 LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD LORD THOMAS OF CWMGIEDD

Found: the last year include those with the Counsel General, the President of Welsh Tribunals, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd

Found: Lordthomas@arbitratorsinternational.com The Rt Hon The Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd PC, FLSW Hannah

Found:  Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (2018) A timely commission, Law Society's Gazette, 115 (8), 11, 2018.

Found:  Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (2018) A timely commission, Law Society's Gazette, 115 (8), 11, 2018.

Found: The Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd PC Thinking policy through before legislating – aspirational legislation

<p>Yes. Again, I'm very grateful to the Counsel General for the tone and her general approach to this matter. I was wondering, building on Alun Davies's question, whether at least the conversation could be had to see if we can't do everything in the context of this Bill, whether we could do something. I'm very conscious of the fact that, Counsel General, you will not be in this post beyond this election, and sometimes you've got to seize the opportunities when they present themselves.</p>
<p>Other legislatures, well, clearly in the context of—I should give him his proper title, sorry—Lord Thomas of Gresford—. There's a plethora of Lord Thomases, of course, and I think Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd has spoken in the Committee Stage debate and was supportive, I think, of this particular provision. Many of those who contributed said that so much in Westminster operates by—. Correction slips have developed by convention. There comes a point when conventions, really, only can get used so far, and we need to create a modern, fit-for-the-twenty-first-century, digital, if possible, process of correction that doesn't require you to have to revoke, amend or bring something back all the time for all the reasons where there is clearly common ground. It would be still, I think, very useful, notwithstanding the elements within the wider context that we don't have complete control over, to see whether some version of this amendment could be brought forward at Stage&nbsp;3.</p>
<p>I will move the amendment. I should point out that I think this particular amendment did have, I believe, frontbench Conservative support in the House of Lords. On that basis, I'd like to move the amendment, but I look forward to continuing the productive, constructive discussions with the Counsel General at a later stage.</p>

<p>Yes, sure. I certainly would welcome that proposal, and I'd welcome further discussions that we could have, Counsel General, also in the context of this Bill, between this stage and the next stage; I'm anticipating. I will be moving the amendment, because I think it's an important parliamentary principle, and I think that it would be good to have it voted on on that basis alone. But I anticipate that it's likely to fail at this stage, and I would appreciate the opportunity to continue the conversation.</p>
<p>I think it's important to recognise that, as I said, this amendment really reflects a growing body of opinion. It actually was—. The whole issue of amendable statutory instruments, of course, has been debated in Westminster for many decades now, but this particular proposal, I think, again, the procedure, I think, was first suggested through a report by Lord Goodlad in 2010; again in a report by Lord Strathclyde in 2015. It was recommended by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the last Parliament, in Westminster. In the context of this statutory instruments Bill that actually went through its Committee Stage unamended on 14 March of this month, with wide-ranging support—it has to be said not on the Government's side, but it did go through unamended, and it obviously has passed its Second Reading as well—it was supported very vocally by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who has been a very high-profile adviser to the Government here. Serious people on the UK Government's governance project, chaired by Dominic Grieve, the former Attorney General, but also Baroness Hodge, Lord Neuberger, Jonathan Jones KC, very heavyweight people from the world of politics and constitutional law, proposed this in their report last year.</p>
<p>And the reason why people are proposing it in legislation, rather than through Standing Orders, as you said was suggested by the chief executive of the Hansard Society, is that it is such an important constitutional principle—it has become such an important constitutional principle—because of this lacuna, this vacuum of accountability. That is why people believe it needs to be enshrined in law, yes, put on a statutory basis, rather than simply done through a change in Standing Orders. So, that's why I will be moving this to a vote, because I think it—. You know, we have an opportunity here. I mean, there may be discussions—I'm sure there will be discussions—in the Business Committee, and I would welcome any discussions in any format. But here is an opportunity, with this Bill, for us to make the change, and I therefore, on that basis, will be moving it to a vote now, and we may, following further discussions, want to revisit this at Stage 3.</p>