DOCSLIB.ORG

CROWN DEPENDENCIES Memoranda of Evidence

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CROWN DEPENDENCIES Memoranda of Evidence CROWN DEPENDENCIES Memoranda of Evidence Memo no Submission from: CD 01 Tomaz Slivnik CD 02 Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay CD 03 Ministry of justice CD 04 Senator T A Le Sueur, Chief Minister of Jersey CD 05 Mike Brown, Chief Minister of Guernsey CD 06 National Association of Health Stores CD 07 Health Food Manufacturers’ Association CD 08 Landsbanki Guernsey Depositors Action Group Conseiller Charles Maitland, Chairman, Sark CD 09 General Purposes and Advisory Committe CD 10 Isle of Man Pensioners Association CD 11 Bob Hill, Member, States of Jersey Assembley CD 12 Crown Appointments in the Bailiwick of Guernsey CD 13 Lord Wallace of Soltaire A.T.T.A.C France and from Local A.T.T.A.C Saint- CD 14 Malo Committee CD 15 Michael Dun CD 16 Members of the Committee of Attac Jersey Tristram C. Llewellyn Jones, Positive Action Group CD 17 member, Isle of Man CD 18 Isle of Man Government Policy and Finance Committee of the States of CD 19 Alderney CD 20 Lord Bach, Ministry of Justice CD 21 Paul Carney CD 22 Joseph Livio Angela CD 23 Tax Justice Network CD 01 Evidence The United Kingdom and the Crown Dependencies Tomaž Slivnik 2 October 2009 Summary Memorandum Summary 1. The way the United Kingdom represents Sark internationally, and the role it assumes in the approval of Sark legislation, is not compatible with 21st century democratic principles and principles of self determination, nor is it compatible with Article 3 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights, nor with Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 2. It is not appropriate in this day and age for unelected by, and unaccountable to, the people of Sark, United Kingdom persons to remain as involved in the Sark legislative process as they are. 3. International treaties are becoming increasingly detailed and leave little scope for variation in the way they are implemented in domestic legislation. They increasingly provide a back door for the United Kingdom to legislate undemocratically for the Crown Dependencies. Introducing the Author 1. I was born in Yugoslavia (in a town which is now in Slovenia) in 1969. I studied at Trinity College, Cambridge, where I obtained a BA (and later MA), Certificate of Advanced Study in Mathematics and PhD in mathematics. I was either employed or an academic visitor at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, USA, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia, National University of Singapore, University of Reading, Reading, UK and University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia. All the while I was commercially active, and subsequently became a full time high technology entrepreneur, investor and business angel. I have established a number of successful high technology enterprises, and helped fund a number of other people’s startup companies, including recently a company in which the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts has also invested in the same funding round. 2. I have lived in a number of countries but settled on the Island of Sark in 2006. 3. I have taken an active interest in Sark’s constitutional reform and was one of the plaintiffs in the case of Barclay (and ors) v. The Secretary of State for Justice (and ors) in the matter of the Reform (Sark) Law 2008, and am now an appellant in the House of Lords in an appeal from that case, the outcome of which is not yet known. Recommendations 1. That the United Kingdom Government and the United Kingdom Parliament relinquish their claims to be able to legislate for Sark without Sark’s consent, and thus acknowledge the right of the people of Sark to have a democratically accountable legislature as is normal in the 21st century, and as is necessary if the United Kingdom is to comply with its ECHR and ICCPR obligations. 2. That Sark’s legislative process be reformed so as to be transparent and fully democratically accountable to the people of Sark, specifically, to reform or abolish the undemocratic legislative roles and powers of Her Majesty’s Procureur, unelected Ministry of Justice officials, and the Minister of Justice in the legislative process of Sark, as is necessary if the United Kingdom is to comply with its ECHR and ICCPR obligations. 3. That the Sark legislative process either be changed so that the relationship between Her Majesty and Chief Pleas is the same as that between Her Majesty and the Parliament of the United Kingdom (namely, that Her Majesty grants Royal Assent to Sark legislation upon recommendation of the Chief Pleas rather than upon the recommendation of Her Majesty’s Privy Council), or, alternatively, that Sark have its own Privy Councillors owing allegiance and duty of care to no Government other than the Government of Sark (and who in particular are independent from the Government of the United Kingdom), who shall constitute the majority of Privy Councillors advising Her Majesty on the legislation of Sark. 4. That no international treaties be entered into by the United Kingdom which create obligations for the Island of Sark without the consent of Sark’s elected government or the people of Sark. 5. That when negotiating international treaties with the Crown Dependencies, the United Kingdom acknowledges Sark and Alderney as jurisdictions on par with Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man that they are, and seeks their consent, and not merely assume that the consent of Guernsey also applies to them. CD 01 Main Memorandum Executive Summary The way the United Kingdom represents Sark internationally, and the role it assumes in the approval of Sark legislation, is not compatible with 21st century democratic principles and principles of self determination, nor is it compatible with Article 3 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights, nor with Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is not appropriate in this day and age for unelected by, and unaccountable to, the people of Sark, United Kingdom persons to remain as involved in the Sark legislative process as they are. International treaties are becoming increasingly detailed and leave little scope for variation in the way they are implemented in domestic legislation. They increasingly provide a back door to legislate undemocratically for the Crown Dependencies. INTRODUCTION 4. I regret that I was not made aware of this call for evidence until 8pm today, 2 October 2009. I therefore had less than 4 hours to prepare this submission. It would appear that, regrettably, this call has not been widely publicized on the Island of Sark and that a number of others, including current Chief Pleas members and former Constitutional Committee members with a great interest in this topic were likewise not aware of this call. I apologize therefore that the quality of this document is not what it ought to be and what I would wish it to be. 5. The recent constitutional reform process on Sark has brought to light a certain friction between Sark and the United Kingdom authorities (particularly the Ministry of Justice) and anomalies in the constitutional relationship between Sark and the United Kingdom. 6. Before England became a constitutional monarchy, both the England and Sark were effectively absolute monarchies. Following the change, England became increasingly democratic. But the change to the people of Sark looked instead more like a change of their absolute monarch, with the Minister of Justice (as an appointee of the Parliament) today possessing some remarkable powers over Sark. This is improper and requires reform. 7. The way the United Kingdom represents Sark internationally, and approves Sark legislation, is not compatible with 21st century democratic principles and principles of self determination. LEGISLATION 8. Sark legislation, once approved by Chief Pleas, is sent to Her Majesty's Procureur in Guernsey. He writes a report and forwards both the law and his report to the Ministry of Justice. Officials there write their own report and present it all to the Minister of Justice. Sark is in no way involved in this process nor is it informed of the content of any of the reports or recommendations. The Minister of Justice then either rejects the law or passes it on to the Privy Council Committee for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey for consideration. If the latter approves it, it is presented to the full Privy Council and receives Royal Assent. 9. Although in theory, considerations involved in such advice are intended to be limited to matters of international obligations of the United Kingdom and the good governance of Sark, in practice, decisions made seem often difficult rationally to reconcile with such objectives and appear more easily to be explained by a political agenda. If decisions made in this approval chain go against Sark, few effective remedies are available to the people of Sark. Likewise, pressure is brought to bear on Sark from time to time to legislate a certain way and again, effective remedies against improper pressure are scarce. 10. It is not appropriate in this day and age for unelected and unaccountable (to the people of Sark) United Kingdom persons to remain involved in the Sark legislative process in this way. It is not compatible with modern democratic principles, nor is it compatible with the United Kingdom's international obligations, in particular with Article 3 of the First Protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights and with Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 11. The United Kingdom Parliament (and possibly the United Kingdom Government) today claim the right to be able to legislate for Sark without Sark's consent, although Sark has always formed a part of Her Majesty's dominions separate from the United Kingdom and has always only been in personal union with the United Kingdom.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Constitutional Requirements for the Royal Morganatic Marriage
    The Constitutional Requirements for the Royal Morganatic Marriage Benoît Pelletier* This article examines the constitutional Cet article analyse les implications implications, for Canada and the other members of the constitutionnelles, pour le Canada et les autres pays Commonwealth, of a morganatic marriage in the membres du Commonwealth, d’un mariage British royal family. The Germanic concept of morganatique au sein de la famille royale britannique. “morganatic marriage” refers to a legal union between Le concept de «mariage morganatique», d’origine a man of royal birth and a woman of lower status, with germanique, renvoie à une union légale entre un the condition that the wife does not assume a royal title homme de descendance royale et une femme de statut and any children are excluded from their father’s rank inférieur, à condition que cette dernière n’acquière pas or hereditary property. un titre royal, ou encore qu’aucun enfant issu de cette For such a union to be celebrated in the royal union n’accède au rang du père ni n’hérite de ses biens. family, the parliament of the United Kingdom would Afin qu’un tel mariage puisse être célébré dans la have to enact legislation. If such a law had the effect of famille royale, une loi doit être adoptée par le denying any children access to the throne, the laws of parlement du Royaume-Uni. Or si une telle loi devait succession would be altered, and according to the effectivement interdire l’accès au trône aux enfants du second paragraph of the preamble to the Statute of couple, les règles de succession seraient modifiées et il Westminster, the assent of the Canadian parliament and serait nécessaire, en vertu du deuxième paragraphe du the parliaments of the Commonwealth that recognize préambule du Statut de Westminster, d’obtenir le Queen Elizabeth II as their head of state would be consentement du Canada et des autres pays qui required.
    [Show full text]
  • Emerging Issues in Compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: a Case of Arrested Development H
    Santa Clara Journal of International Law Volume 14 | Issue 1 Article 8 4-12-2016 Emerging Issues in Compliance With the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: A Case of Arrested Development H. Lowell Brown Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/scujil Recommended Citation H. Lowell Brown, Emerging Issues in Compliance With the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: A Case of Arrested Development, 14 Santa Clara J. Int'l L. 203 (2016). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/scujil/vol14/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Clara Journal of International Law by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Emerging Issues in Compliance With the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Emerging Issues in Compliance With the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: A Case of Arrested Development H. Lowell Brown* * H. Lowell Brown is a member of the bars of the District of Columbia and the States of California and Maine whose practice focuses on white collar criminal defense and corporate compliance. He has written law journal articles on compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, issues in white collar crime, corporate governance and ethics. He is the author of a treatise on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act entitled Bribery in International Commerce (published by Thomson-West), as well as books on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) (published by Thomson-West), money laundering (published by Lexis Nexis), and presidential impeachment (published by Palgrave Macmillan).
    [Show full text]
  • United Nations Convention Against Corruption
    United Nations Convention against Corruption Self-assessment Name: UK Second Cycle Review-20180108-134632 Country: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Date of creation: 24/11/2017 Assessor: Renny Mendoza Assessor Position: International Policy Advisor: Joint Anti-Corruption Unit Release: 3.0.0.15 Comments: Completed self-assessment checklists should be sent to: Corruption and Economic Crime Section Division for Treaty Affairs United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Vienna International Centre PO Box 500 1400 Vienna, Austria Attn: KAMBERSKA Natasha Telephone: + (43) (1) 26060-4293 Telefax: + (43) (1) 26060-74293 E-mail: [email protected] A. General information A. General information 1. General information 1519 1 Focal point: Renny Mendoza 2 Institutions consulted: Home Office, Crown Prosecution Service, Serious Fraud Office, National Crime Agency, Her Majesty’s Treasury, Ministry of Justice, Financial Conduct Authority, HM Revenue and Customs, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Department for International Development. 3 Please provide information on the ratification/acceptance/approval/accession process of the United Nations Convention against Corruption in your country (date of ratification/acceptance/approval of/accession to the Convention, date of entry into force of the Convention in your country, procedure to be followed for ratification/acceptance/approval of/accession to international conventions etc.). UNCAC Ratification Signature date: 9 December 2003 Ratification date: 9 February 2006 Entry into force date: 11 March 2006 Procedure to be followed for ratification of international conventions: The United Kingdom (UK) is a ‘dualist’ state. The UK constitution accords no special status to treaties: rights and obligations created by treaties have no effect in UK law unless legislation is in force to give effect to them.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories in the Brexit Era
    Island Studies Journal, 15(1), 2020, 151-168 The sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories in the Brexit era Maria Mut Bosque School of Law, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Spain MINECO DER 2017-86138, Ministry of Economic Affairs & Digital Transformation, Spain Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London, UK [email protected] (corresponding author) Abstract: This paper focuses on an analysis of the sovereignty of two territorial entities that have unique relations with the United Kingdom: the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories (BOTs). Each of these entities includes very different territories, with different legal statuses and varying forms of self-administration and constitutional linkages with the UK. However, they also share similarities and challenges that enable an analysis of these territories as a complete set. The incomplete sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and BOTs has entailed that all these territories (except Gibraltar) have not been allowed to participate in the 2016 Brexit referendum or in the withdrawal negotiations with the EU. Moreover, it is reasonable to assume that Brexit is not an exceptional situation. In the future there will be more and more relevant international issues for these territories which will remain outside of their direct control, but will have a direct impact on them. Thus, if no adjustments are made to their statuses, these territories will have to keep trusting that the UK will be able to represent their interests at the same level as its own interests. Keywords: Brexit, British Overseas Territories (BOTs), constitutional status, Crown Dependencies, sovereignty https://doi.org/10.24043/isj.114 • Received June 2019, accepted March 2020 © 2020—Institute of Island Studies, University of Prince Edward Island, Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • H. Brecqhou Autonomy
    Dawes: Brecqhou’s Autonomy BRECQHOU’S AUTONOMY A Response to Henry Johnson’s ‘Sark and Brecqhou: Space, Politics and Power’ (2014) GORDON DAWES Mourant Ozanes <[email protected]> Key Words: Brecqhou, Sark, Barclay Brothers As detailed below, Henry Johnson’s article ‘Sark and Brecqhou, Space Politics and Power’ (2014) published in Shima v8 n1: 9-33 contains a number of factual errors and erroneous interpretations of the issues concerned. There is also a significant problem with the comparators used to refer to matters concerning Sark and Brecqhou since the micronations selected are bogus, recent conceits, as opposed to islands with ancient histories and real status, such as Sark and, separately, Brecqhou. The crucial distinction is that there is no external challenge to the status of either Sark or Brecqhou. The principal shortcomings of Johnson’s chacterisations and argument are as follows: Page 10 – Johnson states that Sark and Brecqhou form one jurisdiction. This is too simplistic a statement. Brecqhou is certainly not a part of Sark, and I return to this issue later. Sark's parliament and court claim jurisdiction over Brecqhou. However, that jurisdiction is itself contentious and the concession made in a statement to the Royal Court of Guernsey in private law proceedings in 2000 referred to by Johnson was itself wrongly made and/or not binding as a matter of public law. In practice the jurisdiction is rarely exercised and, when it is, dispute generally follows. Whatever legislative jurisdiction is claimed is itself limited by convention as to how it is exercised and when. Page 12 – Johnson states that Sir Frederick and Sir David Barclay are tenants of La Moinerie de Haut, one of the original Sark tenements, and repeats a claim that Brecqhou became a tenement of Sark in 1929 when Dame Sybil Hathaway sold Brecqhou to one Angelo Clarke.
    [Show full text]
  • US Senate Final
    Senate Finance Committee Hearing ”Offshore Tax Evasion: Stashing Cash Overseas” 111 May 3, 2007 Statement for the Hearing Record Submitted by: Richard Murphy FCA 222 (((Visiting(Visiting Fellow, Centre for Global Political EconomEconomy,y, University of Sussex, UK ))) Prof Prem Sikka 333 (Professor of Accounting, University of Essex, UK) Prof Ronen Palan 444 (Professor of International Relations and Politics, University of Sussex, UK) Prof Sol Picciotto 555 (Professor of Law, University of Lancaster, UK) Alex Cobham 666 (Supernumerary fellow in Economics at St Anne's College, Oxford, UKUK)))) John Christensen 777 (Director, International secretariat, Tax Justice Network 888))) 1 http://www.senate.gov/~finance/sitepages/hearing050307.htm accessed 18-6-07 2 http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Documents//RichardMurphycvJuly2006.pdf accessed 18-6-07 3 http://www.essex.ac.uk/afm/staff/sikka.shtm accessed 18-6-07 4 http://www.sussex.ac.uk/irp/profile17282.html accessed 18-6-07 5 http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/law/staff/picciotto.htm accessed 18-6-07 6 http://www.policyinnovations.org/innovators/people/data/07512 accessed 18-6-07 7 John Christensen is a development economist and an expert on tax havens. Based at the New Economics Foundation in London, he is international coordinator of the Tax Justice Network. 8 http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/front_content.php?idcat=2 accessed 18-6-07 1 Jersey ––– still a tax haven Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member Grassley, Members of the Committee, we are honoured to provide you with this written testimony on the subject of offshore tax evasion. This testimony is submitted in the light of Bills S.
    [Show full text]
  • THE GREEN BOOK Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government
    THE GREEN BOOK Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government Treasury Guidance LONDON:TSO CONTENTS Page Page Contents iv Annex 1 Government intervention 51 Introduction 51 Preface v Economic efficiency 51 Chapter 1 Introduction and background 1 Equity 52 Introduction 1 Additionality 52 When to use the Green Book 2 Regeneration 54 Chapter 2 Overview of appraisal and Annex 2 Valuing non-market impacts 57 evaluation 3 Introduction 57 Introduction 3 Valuing non-market impacts 57 The appraisal and evaluation cycle 3 Current research/plausible estimates 59 The role of appraisal 3 Valuing environmental impacts 63 Process for appraisal and evaluation 4 Annex 3 Land and buildings 69 Presenting the results 6 Introduction 69 Managing appraisals and evaluations 7 Acquisition and use of property 69 Frameworks 8 Leases and rents 71 Issues relevant to appraisal and evaluation 9 Disposal of property 72 Chapter 3 Justifying action 11 Cost effective land use 72 Introduction 11 Annex 4 Risk and uncertainty 79 Reasons for government intervention 11 Introduction 79 Carrying out research 11 Risk management 79 Chapter 4 Setting objectives 13 Transferring risk 82 Introduction 13 Optimism bias 85 Objectives, outcomes, outputs and targets 13 Monte Carlo analysis 87 Irreversible risk 88 Chapter 5 Appraising the options 17 The cost of variability in outcomes 88 Introduction 17 Creating options 17 Annex 5 Distributional impacts 91 Valuing the costs and benefits of options 19 Introduction 91 Adjustments to values of costs and benefits 24 Distributional analysis 91
    [Show full text]
  • The Identification of Radicals in the British Parliament
    1 HANSEN 0001 040227 名城論叢 2004年３月 31 THE IDENTIFICATION OF ‘RADICALS’ IN THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT, 1906-1914 P.HANSEN INTRODUCTION This article aims to identify the existence of a little known group of minority opinion in British society during the Edwardian Age. It is an attempt to define who the British Radicals were in the parliaments during the years immediately preceding the Great War. Though some were particularly interested in the foreign policy matters of the time,it must be borne in mind that most confined their energies to promoting the Liberal campaign for domestic welfare issues. Those considered or contemporaneously labelled as ‘Radicals’held ‘leftwing’views, being politically somewhat just left of centre. They were not revolutionaries or communists. They wanted change through reforms carried out in a democratic manner. Their failure to carry out changes on a significant scale was a major reason for the decline of the Liberals,and the rise and ultimate success of the Labour Party. Indeed, following the First World War, many Radicals defected from the Liberal Party to join Labour. With regard to historiography,it can be stated that the activities of British Radicals from the turn of the century to the outbreak of the First World War were the subject of interest to the most famous British historian of the second half of the 20century, A. J. P. Taylor. He wrote of them in his work The Troublemakers based on his Ford Lectures of 1956. By the early 1970s’A.J.A.Morris had established a reputation in the field with his book Radicalism Against War, 1906-1914 (1972),and a further publication of which he was editor,Edwardian Radical- ism 1900-1914 (1974).
    [Show full text]
  • Tempered Radicals and Servant Leaders: Portraits of Spirited Leadership Amongst African Women Leaders
    TEMPERED RADICALS AND SERVANT LEADERS: PORTRAITS OF SPIRITED LEADERSHIP AMONGST AFRICAN WOMEN LEADERS Faith Wambura Ngunjiri A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION May 2006 Committee: Judy A. Alston, Advisor Laura B. Lengel Graduate Faculty Representative Mark A. Earley Khaula Murtadha © 2006 Faith Wambura Ngunjiri All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Judy A. Alston, Advisor There have been few studies on experiences of African women in leadership. In this study, I aimed at contributing to bridging that literature gap by adding the voices of African women leaders who live and work in or near Nairobi Kenya in East Africa. The purpose of this study was to explore, explain and seek to understand women’s leadership through the lived experiences of sixteen women leaders from Africa. The study was an exploration of how these women leaders navigated the intersecting oppressive forces emanating from gender, culture, religion, social norm stereotypes, race, marital status and age as they attempted to lead for social justice. The central biographical methodology utilized for this study was portraiture, with the express aim of celebrating and learning from the resiliency and strength of the women leaders in the face of adversities and challenges to their authority as leaders. Leadership is influence and a process of meaning making amongst people to engender commitment to common goals, expressed in a community of practice. I presented short herstories of eleven of the women leaders, and in depth portraits of the other five who best illustrated and expanded the a priori conceptual framework.
    [Show full text]
  • Języki Regionalne I Mniejszościowe Wielkiej Brytanii
    biuro analiz, dokumentacji i korespondencji Języki regionalne i mniejszościowe Wielkiej Brytanii Opracowania tematyczne OT–677 warszawa 2020 © Copyright by Kancelaria Senatu, Warszawa 2020 Biuro Analiz, Dokumentacji i Korespondencji Dyrektor – Agata Karwowska-Sokołowska tel. 22 694 94 32, fax 22 694 94 28, e-mail: [email protected] Wicedyrektor – Danuta Antoszkiewicz tel. 22 694 93 21, e-mail: [email protected] Dział Analiz i Opracowań Tematycznych tel. 22 694 92 04, fax 22 694 94 28 Opracowanie graficzno-techniczne Centrum Informacyjne Senatu Dział Edycji i Poligrafii Kancelaria Senatu styczeń 2020 dr Andrzej Krasnowolski Dział Analiz i Opracowań Tematycznych Biuro Analiz, Dokumentacji i Korespondencji Języki regionalne i mniejszościowe Wielkiej Brytanii I. Uwagi wstępne Istnienie lokalnych mniejszościowych języków na terytorium każde- go państwa uwarunkowane jest jego historią. W większości państw obok języka narodowego występują języki dawnych grup etnicznych, mniejszości narodowych oraz języki regionalne, którymi posługują się mieszkańcy konkretnego terytorium – języki niewystępujące na innych obszarach państwa. Języki takie mogą posiadać lokalny status prawny lub mogą być jego pozbawione, a ich przetrwanie zawsze zależy od stop- nia użytkowania ich w środowiskach rodzinnych. Zjednoczone Królestwo Wielkiej Brytanii i Irlandii Północnej w jego zachodnioeuropejskiej części tworzy archipelag wysp różnej wielkości, z których największa to Wielka Brytania, na której położone są Anglia, Walia i Szkocja;
    [Show full text]
  • HM Revenues and Customs (148KB Pdf)
    FINANCE COMMITTEE CALL FOR EVIDENCE ON THE LAND AND BUILDINGS TRANSACTION TAX (SCOTLAND) BILL SUBMISSION FROM HM REVENUE & CUSTOMS 1. This submission is in response to the Committee’s invitation of 25 January 2013 to submit written evidence on the following specific issues: The transitional arrangements being made by HMRC with regards the operation of Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) and the switch over in Scotland to Land and Buildings Transactions Tax (LBTT); Liaison with Scottish Government (SG), Registers of Scotland (RoS) and Revenue Scotland over these arrangements; Costs associated with this ‘switch over’; and Outline of the present relationship with RoS in gathering SDLT in Scotland. 2. HMRC is responsible for the collection and management of UK taxes (other than those collected by local authorities). As such, it is responsible for SDLT, which currently applies to land transactions in the United Kingdom. Under provisions of the Scotland Act 2012, SDLT will be “switched off” in Scotland and replaced by a devolved tax, the LBTT. This is expected to apply from April 2015. The transitional arrangements being made by HMRC with regards the operation of SDLT and the switch over in Scotland to LBTT 3. Section 80J(2) of the Scotland Act 1998 (inserted by section 28 of the Scotland Act 2012) has the effect that LBTT cannot be charged on a land transaction if SDLT applies to it. Broadly this means that, if the effective date of a Scottish transaction (for SDLT purposes) is before the date on which SDLT is switched off in Scotland (the switch-off date) it will be subject to SDLT and if that date is on or after the switch-off date it will be subject to LBTT.
    [Show full text]
  • George Bush Presidential Library Records on the Royal Family of the United Kingdom
    George Bush Presidential Library 1000 George Bush Drive West College Station, TX 77845 phone: (979) 691-4041 fax: (979) 691-4030 http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu [email protected] Inventory for FOIA Request 2017-1750-F Records on the Royal Family of the United Kingdom Extent 106 folders Access Collection is open to all researchers. Access to Bush Presidential Records, Bush Vice Presidential Records, and Quayle Vice Presidential Records is governed by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)(5 USC 552 as amended) and the Presidential Records Act (PRA)(44 USC 22) and therefore records may be restricted in whole or in part in accordance with legal exemptions. Copyright Documents in this collection that were prepared by officials of the United States government as part of their official duties are in the public domain. Researchers are advised to consult the copyright law of the United States (Title 17, USC) which governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Provenance Official records of George Bush’s presidency and vice presidency are housed at the George Bush Presidential Library and administered by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) under the provisions of the Presidential Records Act (PRA). Processed By Staff Archivists, November 2017. Previously restricted materials are added as they are released. System of Arrangement Records that are responsive to this FOIA request were found in five collection areas—Bush Presidential Records: WHORM Subject Files; Bush Presidential Records: Staff and Office Files; Bush Vice Presidential Records: Staff and Office Files; and Quayle Vice Presidential Records: Staff and Office Files.
    [Show full text]