DOCSLIB.ORG

The Sewel Convention: the Westminster Perspective

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Sewel Convention: the Westminster Perspective House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee The Sewel Convention: the Westminster perspective Fourth Report of Session 2005–06 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 6 June 2006 HC 983 Published on 19 June 2006 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £13.50 The Scottish Affairs Committee The Scottish Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Scotland Office (including (i) relations with the Scottish Parliament and (ii) administration and expenditure of the office of the Advocate General for Scotland (but excluding individual cases and advice given within government by the Advocate General)). Current membership Mr Mohammad Sarwar MP (Labour, Glasgow Central) (Chairman) Danny Alexander MP, (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey) Gordon Banks MP, (Labour, Ochil & South Perthshire) Ms Katy Clark MP, (Labour, North Ayrshire & Arran) Mr Ian Davidson MP, (Labour, Glasgow South West) Mr John MacDougall MP, (Labour, Glenrothes) Mr Jim McGovern MP, (Labour, Dundee West) Mr Angus MacNeil MP, (SNP, Na h-Eileanan An Iar) David Mundell MP, (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) Mr Charles Walker MP, (Conservative, Broxbourne) Mr Ben Wallace MP, (Conservative, Lancaster & Wyre) Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/scottish_affairs_committee.cfm A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Mike Clark (Clerk), Diane Nelson (Committee Assistant) and Camilla Brace (Secretary). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Scottish Affairs Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6295; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]. Scottish Affairs Committee 1 Contents Report Page 1 Background to the inquiry 3 2 The Westminster perspective 5 Communicating the Scottish Parliament’s view 6 “Tagging” of relevant Bills 7 Improved Explanatory Notes 7 Private Members’ Bills 9 3 Closer ties with the Scottish Parliament 11 4 Addressing West Lothian? 13 Conclusions and recommendations 16 Annex 18 Extract from the Explanatory Notes to the Equality Bill [Lords] 18 Extract from the Explanatory Notes to the Police and Justice Bill 18 Formal Minutes 19 Witnesses 20 List of written evidence 20 Publications from the Scottish Affairs Committee since 2005 21 Scottish Affairs Committee 3 1 Background to the inquiry 1. In January 2005, the Procedures Committee of the Scottish Parliament announced a major inquiry into the operation of the Sewel Convention1, ie, the process whereby the Scottish Parliament (“Holyrood”) is asked to give its consent to a Westminster Bill that would change the law on a devolved matter or alter the powers devolved to Holyrood or to the Scottish Executive. 2. The Procedures Committee published its Report on 5 October 2005.2 It made a number of recommendations for changes to how the Scottish Parliament dealt with Sewel motions,3 which would replace the then current, and largely ad hoc, procedures “with a framework of new rules to improve transparency and to enhance the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny”.4 The recommendations included: a requirement on the Scottish Executive to provide information about any Scottish implications arising from Bills announced in the Queen’s speech; and a requirement on the Executive to provide a detailed memorandum at an earlier stage in the Westminster process thus giving the Scottish Parliament more time for scrutiny.5 3. The Committee also encouraged Scottish Ministers to make more time available for debates on Sewel motions which dealt with major issues, and proposed replacing the term “Sewel motions” with “Legislative Consent motions”.6 4. The Procedures Committee also made a number of suggestions as to how Westminster could change its own procedures in what it described as “a spirit of constructive inter- parliamentary dialogue.”7 Those suggestions were: the tagging of Bills in progress at Westminster to which the Sewel Convention would apply so that Westminster knew which Bills were involved; the question of having explanatory notes in every Bill outlining whether the Bill triggered off the Sewel Convention and in what ways it engaged in the convention; and a formal process for the Scottish Parliament to notify Westminster when a “legislative consent motion” had been passed, so that there would be contact from Parliament to Parliament, rather than simply going through Ministers.8 1 Procedures Committee News Release, CPROC 001/2005, 18 January 2005. 2 Procedures Committee 7th Report, 2005, The Sewel Convention, SP Paper 428. 3 The “Sewel Convention” and “Sewel motions” are named after Lord Sewel, the then Scottish Office Minister responsible for steering the Scotland Bill through the House of Lords in July 1998. 4 Procedures Committee News Release, CPROC 004/2005, 5 October 2005. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 7 Procedures Committee 7th Report, 2005, The Sewel Convention, SP Paper 428, para 203. 8 Ibid, paras 204–207. 4 Scottish Affairs Committee 5. On 19 October 2005, we took evidence from Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP, the then Secretary of State for Scotland, on the Scotland Office’s Departmental Annual Report. During questioning on whether Westminster had dealt effectively with Sewel motions, the Secretary of State responded: “…whilst it is probably fair to say that Members of the Scottish Parliament are very aware of there being a Sewel motion because they have debated it, my guess is Members of this Parliament are probably not aware either (a) that there is one, or (b) what happened to it. That is something which is obviously outside my responsibility. It is a matter for the House, but the House has a Procedure Committee and it, too, will probably want to study this to see whether or not it would be of assistance to Members generally if they knew, firstly that there was a Sewel motion, and secondly what was happening to it and what the considerations were. You may want to make recommendations on that, I do not know, but that is really for the House, it is not for the Government.” 9 6. The remit of the Scottish Affairs Committee, as set out in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, includes having responsibility for relations with the Scottish Parliament.10 Although we had already identified the Sewel Convention and relations between Westminster and Holyrood as a potential subject for a future inquiry, the Procedures Committee’s report, and the Secretary of State’s response to our questioning, acted as a catalyst. 7. On 27 October 2005, we announced that we would be holding our own inquiry into The Sewel Convention: the Westminster perspective. We stated that we would not be inquiring into Sewel motions per se, but rather how Members of Parliament could be better made aware that a particular Bill before the House of Commons had been subject to a Sewel motion in the Scottish Parliament – for example, perhaps by a more formal communication between Holyrood and Westminster, and the other possible changes to Westminster procedures promulgated by the Procedures Committee in its report.11 8. Subsequently, the Scottish Parliament debated, and approved, the proposed changes to its own procedures on 23 November 2005.12 Although, therefore, Sewel motions are now officially entitled Legislative Consent motions, we have used “Sewel” throughout this Report as the term people will most immediately recognise. 9 Scottish Affairs Committee, Minutes of Evidence, 19 October 2005, Scotland Office Annual Report 2005, HC (2005– 06) 580–i, Q18. 10 S.O. No. 152(2). 11 Scottish Affairs Committee Press Notice No. 3 of Session 2005–2006, 27 October 2005. 12 http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/officialReports/meetingsParliament/or-05/sor1123-02.htm#Col20980. Scottish Affairs Committee 5 2 The Westminster perspective 9. During our inquiry, we held four evidence sessions, all during March 2006; one in Edinburgh and three in Westminster. In Edinburgh, to start off the inquiry, we took evidence from Mr Donald Gorrie MSP, the Convener, Ms Karen Gillon MSP, the Deputy Convener, Mr Alex Johnstone MSP, and Mr Andrew Mylne, the Committee Clerk, of the Procedures Committee of the Scottish Parliament; at Westminster, we took evidence from Ms Margaret Curran MSP, Minister for Parliamentary Business, Mr Murray Sinclair, Head, Constitution and Parliamentary Secretariat, and Mr Paul Allen, Head, Constitutional Policy Unit, the Scottish Executive and from Mr David Cairns MP, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, Dr Jim Wildgoose, the Head of Scotland Office, and Mr Glenn Preston, Head of the Scotland Office’s Constitutional Branch; from Mr Roger Sands, the Clerk of the House of Commons, and Mr Frank Cranmer, Clerk of Bills, House of Commons; and from Mr Barry K Winetrobe, Reader in Law, Napier University.13 In addition to written submissions from the witnesses above, we also received a memorandum from the Clerk of the Parliaments.14 We wish to place on record our thanks to all those who gave evidence during the inquiry. 10. We would also wish to record our gratitude to the staff at Edinburgh City Chambers, who facilitated our first set of formal evidence held outside Westminster since the 2005 General Election, and to the Members and the members of staff of the Scottish Parliament we met during our visit to Holyrood immediately following our evidence session; particular thanks go to Trish Godman MSP, the Convener, and her colleagues on the Conveners’ Group for hosting a working lunch for us when we were able to discuss informally numerous matters of mutual concern.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 Andrew Marr Show, Jeremy Hunt, Mp
    1 ANDREW MARR SHOW, JEREMY HUNT, MP ANDREW MARR SHOW, 30TH JUNE, 2019 JEREMY HUNT, MP Foreign Secretary AM: Now the truth of the matter is, you know, you’re making a bit of progress but you’re still far, far behind Boris Johnson, and that’s partly down to your own use of language. Do you regret calling him a coward? JH: Well what I said is, “don’t be a coward,” because I think it’s a great shame. This is actually the last of your shows before many Conservative Party members will vote, because they’ll be getting their ballot papers in the next few days and he hasn’t been on here, he hasn’t been prepared to do head to head debates with me before people vote and I think people want a contest; I think that’s respectful to members and I think it will be much better for whoever’s Prime Minister to have that had contest first. So I think what we need is a bit of mojo from Bo-Jo. AM: Now you have also said he must be straight with people. Being straight is our motto here today. JH: I’m always straight on your show, Andrew. AM: Of course you are. In that spirit I want to ask about the Hunt spending splurge, because it seems like an awful lot of money. Corporation Tax, your proposals on Corporation Tax would cost about £13 billion, where would that come from? JH: Well we have about £26 billion of headroom at the moment, and this is a very – AM: I thought you’d say that.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rt Hon Sir Robert Neill MP Justice Committee Chair House of Commons London 1 Horse Guards Road London SW1A OAA
    HM Treasury, 1 Horse Guards Road, London, SW1A 2HQ The Rt Hon Sir Robert Neill MP Justice Committee Chair House of Commons London 1 Horse Guards Road London SW1A OAA 5 May 2020 Dear Sir Robert, COVID-19 IMPACT ON LEGAL SECTOR 1. Thank you for your letter of 8 April highlighting the impact of the Covid-19 coronavirus outbreak on the legal professions. As the minister responsible for spending on the Justice system, I am responding on behalf of the Chancellor. 2. The government recognises the importance of the work of the legal professions in enabling access to justice across the country, and my officials are working closely with their counterparts in the Ministry of Justice and Legal Aid Agency to understand and mitigate the impact of Covid-19 on the sector. 3. In response to Covid-19, the government is making sure that people and businesses have access to the support they need as quickly as possible. We have announced unprecedented support for business and workers to protect them against the current economic emergency including an initial £330 billion of guarantees – equivalent to 15% of UK GDP. 4. The financial support schemes announced by the Chancellor should be accessible to firms in the legal sector who are experiencing reduced demand during this period. These are the Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme (CBILS), the Coronavirus Large Business Interruption Loan Scheme (CLBILS) and the Coronavirus Financing Facility (CFF). These schemes are designed to provide financial support to firms of all sizes facing cash-flow issues as a result of Covid-19.
    [Show full text]
  • British Overseas Territories Law
    British Overseas Territories Law Second Edition Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson HART PUBLISHING Bloomsbury Publishing Plc Kemp House , Chawley Park, Cumnor Hill, Oxford , OX2 9PH , UK HART PUBLISHING, the Hart/Stag logo, BLOOMSBURY and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2018 First edition published in 2011 Copyright © Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson , 2018 Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identifi ed as Authors of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. While every care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of this work, no responsibility for loss or damage occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any statement in it can be accepted by the authors, editors or publishers. All UK Government legislation and other public sector information used in the work is Crown Copyright © . All House of Lords and House of Commons information used in the work is Parliamentary Copyright © . This information is reused under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 ( http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ open-government-licence/version/3 ) except where otherwise stated. All Eur-lex material used in the work is © European Union, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ , 1998–2018. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Ministerial Committee Communiqué
    JOINT MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE COMMUNIQUÉ ! ! A Plenary meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee was held today in 10 Downing Street under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister, Rt Hon Theresa May MP.! ! The participants were:! ● from HM Government the Prime Minister, Rt Hon Theresa May, MP, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, Rt Hon David Davis MP, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Rt Hon Greg Clark MP, the Secretary of State for Scotland, Rt Hon David Mundell MP, the Secretary of State for Wales, Rt Hon Alun Cairns MP Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Rt Hon James Brokenshire, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Rt Hon David Gauke MP and the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Rt Hon Ben Gummer MP;! ● from the Scottish Government the First Minister, Rt Hon Nicola Sturgeon MSP and the Minister for UK Negotiations on Scotland's Place in Europe, Michael Russell MSP;! ● from the Northern Ireland Executive the First Minister, Rt Hon Arlene Foster MLA and the deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness MLA; ! ● from the Welsh Government the First Minister, Rt Hon Carwyn Jones AM and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, Mark Drakeford AM. ! ! The three principal agenda items at the meeting were the state of relations between the administrations, exiting the European Union and economic growth and industrial strategy. ! ! On the first item, Ministers discussed the principles which should govern relations between the four administrations and noted work in hand on a number of procedural and administrative measures intended to make the JMC a more effective forum for the discussion and management of inter-administration issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Committee for Justice Report on the Legislative Consent Motion to Allow the Inclusion of Amendments to Court Rule-Making Procedu
    Northern Ireland Assembly Committee for Justice Report on the Legislative Consent Motion to allow the inclusion of Amendments to Court Rule-Making Procedures in the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill Thursday 12 September 2013 Report: NIA 111/11-15 Contents Background Committee Consideration Purpose of the Legislative Consent Motion Conclusion Appendix 1 Legislative Consent Memorandum - Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, as laid on 28 June 2013 Appendix 2 Departmental Memoranda Background 1. Court Rules are made in a variety of different ways with some Rules being subject to the negative resolution procedure while others, such as County Court and Magistrates’ Court Rules, are currently not subject to any Assembly procedure. 2. The previous Justice Committee, during its consideration of the Justice Bill 2010 (now the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2011), sought further information on the background and rationale for some Court Rules such as the County Court Rules and Magistrates’ Courts Rules not being subject to any formal Assembly procedure (although they could be scrutinised by the Committee). 3. The Committee noted that the reason for the varying approaches to scrutiny appeared to be largely historical rather than due to logic or principle and was of the view that a change to the position to make all Rules subject to negative resolution procedure, which would require amendments in primary legislation, was logical and consistent. The Committee therefore wrote to the Minister of Justice regarding harmonising court rule making procedures so that the same level of scrutiny would apply to all court rules. 4. The Minister of Justice agreed with the Committee’s position and undertook to make the necessary changes to primary legislation at the next available opportunity.
    [Show full text]
  • Inquiry Into Boundaries, Voting & Representation in Scotland
    -2 NORTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM No. -..-- L...... REPORT To: POLICY AND RESOURCES Subject: INQUIRY INTO BOUNDARIES, COMMITTEE VOTING AND REPRESENTATION IN SCOTLAND -CONSULTATION - THE ARBUTHNOTT COMMISSION From: DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION Date: 18 August 2005 Ref: JOHIJAFIIL 1. Purpose of Report 1.I The Policy and Resources Committee at its meeting on 8 February 2005 considered a report (1) outlining the remit of the Commission on Boundary Differences and Voting Systems (the Arbuthnott Commission) set up by the Secretary of State for Scotland in July 2004; (2) ’ advising of a consultation received from the Commission inviting comments by 15 April 2005 on various matters in relation to boundaries and voting systems and (3) proposing that the MemberlOfficer Group on Local Governance prepare a detailed response for submission to the next meeting of the Policy and Resources Committee. 1.2 As a result, consideration was given to the consultation paper at the meeting of the MernbedOfficer Group held on 7 April 2005, at which time the Working Group formulated responses to the questions posed in the Commission’s consultation, those responses being as attached in Appendix 1 to this report. 1.3 The responses prepared by way of the Working Group were endorsed at the Policy and Resources Committee meeting on 19 April 2005. 2. Request for Meeting 2.1 In addition, the Policy and Resources Committee agreed in April that the MembedOfficer Working Group on Local Governance, representing the Council, should seek a meeting with representatives of the Arbuthnott Commission. 2.2 A response has now been received from the Commission dated 30 June 2005 and a copy is attached as Appendix 2 to this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Uk Government and Special Advisers
    UK GOVERNMENT AND SPECIAL ADVISERS April 2019 Housing Special Advisers Parliamentary Under Parliamentary Under Parliamentary Under Parliamentary Under INTERNATIONAL 10 DOWNING Toby Lloyd Samuel Coates Secretary of State Secretary of State Secretary of State Secretary of State Deputy Chief Whip STREET DEVELOPMENT Foreign Affairs/Global Salma Shah Rt Hon Tobias Ellwood MP Kwasi Kwarteng MP Jackie Doyle-Price MP Jake Berry MP Christopher Pincher MP Prime Minister Britain James Hedgeland Parliamentary Under Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Chief Whip (Lords) Rt Hon Theresa May MP Ed de Minckwitz Olivia Robey Secretary of State INTERNATIONAL Parliamentary Under Secretary of State and Minister for Women Stuart Andrew MP TRADE Secretary of State Heather Wheeler MP and Equalities Rt Hon Lord Taylor Chief of Staff Government Relations Minister of State Baroness Blackwood Rt Hon Penny of Holbeach CBE for Immigration Secretary of State and Parliamentary Under Mordaunt MP Gavin Barwell Special Adviser JUSTICE Deputy Chief Whip (Lords) (Attends Cabinet) President of the Board Secretary of State Deputy Chief of Staff Olivia Oates WORK AND Earl of Courtown Rt Hon Caroline Nokes MP of Trade Rishi Sunak MP Special Advisers Legislative Affairs Secretary of State PENSIONS JoJo Penn Rt Hon Dr Liam Fox MP Parliamentary Under Laura Round Joe Moor and Lord Chancellor SCOTLAND OFFICE Communications Special Adviser Rt Hon David Gauke MP Secretary of State Secretary of State Lynn Davidson Business Liason Special Advisers Rt Hon Amber Rudd MP Lord Bourne of
    [Show full text]
  • Swearing in of the Lord Chancellor
    THE RT HON. THE LORD THOMAS OF CWMGIEDD SWEARING IN OF THE LORD CHANCELLOR COURT 4, ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE 19 June 2017 1. My Lord Chancellor, it is a real pleasure to welcome you today on behalf of Her Majesty’s judges. Your appointment comes at a time of real challenge for our justice system. You are a Lord Chancellor for interesting times; ones that will reshape our justice system for the 21st Century. 2. You first bring to your office your scholarship as a historian. Your doctorate at Cambridge focused on the enforcement of penal statutes from 1558-1576 before the Court of Exchequer. It is quite some time since a Lord Chancellor has been an expert on that particular court. 3. I hope that the study did not extend too closely to my predecessors who were Chief Justices during that period and, if so, that they did not shape your view of a Chief Justice. The one who occupied that post for almost the entire period of your study was Sir Robert Catlynne. He presided over the conviction of the Duke of Norfolk for treason. Lord Campbell concluded that Sir Robert Catlynne acted in a manner in which he could “hardly be defended from the charge of consciously perverting the law of treason.” However, we all know that Lord Campbell, who became a historian after he retired as Lord Chancellor, does not enjoy a reputation for total accuracy. 1 4. We have moved some way away from the practices and procedures common to the Court of Exchequer and the other courts before the Chief Justiceship of Sir Edward Coke in 1606.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Communique Joint Ministerial Committee
    OFFICIAL JOINT COMMUNIQUE JOINT MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE (PLENARY) 19 DECEMBER 2018 NO. 10 DOWNING STREET A plenary meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee was held today in Downing Street, chaired by the Prime Minister, Rt Hon Theresa May MP. The participants were: ● from HM Government the Prime Minister, Rt Hon Theresa May, MP, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Rt Hon David Lidington MP, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, Rt Hon Stephen Barclay MP, the Secretary of State for Scotland, Rt Hon David Mundell MP, the Secretary of State for Wales, Rt Hon Alun Cairns MP, and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Rt Hon Karen Bradley MP; ● from the Scottish Government the First Minister, Rt Hon Nicola Sturgeon MSP and the Cabinet Secretary for Government Business and Constitutional Relations, Michael Russell MSP; and ● from the Welsh Government the First Minister, Mark Drakeford AM and Jeremy Miles AM, Counsel General Designate and Brexit Minister. David Sterling, Head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service attended the meeting in the continued absence of a Northern Ireland Executive. The Prime Minister congratulated the First Minister of Wales on his appointment. The two principal agenda items at the meeting were exiting the European Union and the state of relations. Under the first item, the Prime Minister updated the First Ministers on negotiations with the European Union. The Committee discussed next steps on the UK’s exit from the EU. Under the second item, the Committee noted progress on the review on intergovernmental relations and remitted further work to officials.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence Submission to the Independent Review Into the 2007
    Evidence submission to the Independent Review into the 2007 Scottish Elections from the Electoral Reform Society 1. Introduction The Electoral Reform Society welcomes this independent inquiry into the Scottish elections of 3 May 2007. We hope that the Inquiry will be able to throw light on: What went wrong in the conduct of these elections; What needs to be done to reduce the risk of the same problems arising in future elections; What other changes should be made to our electoral arrangements. Although in many ways the elections of 3 May were a step forwards for Scottish democracy, serious problems were nevertheless encountered. If with hindsight it is concluded that there were deficiencies in the planning and preparation for the elections, we hope the focus will be on the changes that need to be made before the next round of elections and not on the apportionment of blame. In our work in Scotland over the past year, we have not encountered a single person with responsibility for the elections not totally committed to making the elections a success and not entirely professional in their approach. The Society has already contributed materials to this Inquiry, including research notes on ballot rejection in: • Rejected ballots in UK General Elections • Rejected ballots in Welsh and Scottish elections • Rejected ballots in London elections. We draw on these in this submission, and attach copies of the research notes for ease of reference. We would be delighted to provide further copies of any other Society publications on request: many are available in both electronic format and as hard copies.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 —The Office of Lord Chancellor
    Select Committee on the Constitution Inquiry: The Office of Lord Chancellor [email protected] (July 2014) —THE OFFICE OF LORD CHANCELLOR— Graham Gee Birmingham Law School The University of Birmingham In this evidence, I draw on research conducted between 2011-2014 with Robert Hazell (UCL), Kate Malleson (Queen Mary) and Patrick O’Brien (UCL) as part of an AHRC- funded project on The Politics of Judicial Independence in the UK’s Changing Constitution. This included 150 confidential interviews with judges, politicians, officials and others involved in the administration of justice in the UK. Although drawing on research conducted jointly with Hazell, Malleson and O’Brien, this evidence is my own interpretation of our findings. 1. What are the current functions of the Lord Chancellor (as distinct from those of the Secretary of State for Justice)? 1.1 There are eight main functions of the new-style Lord Chancellors: (i) to ensure that there is an efficient and effective court system, including by providing the necessary resources and accounting to Parliament for their efficient and proper use;1 (ii) to decide the framework for the organization of the court system, including determining the total number of judges after consulting with the LCJ;2 (iii) to determine the pay, pensions and conditions of judicial service, taking into account recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body;3 (iv) to determine (with the LCJ) the aims of HMCTS, to endeavour to agree its budget with the LCJ, and to supply sufficient staff and resources;4 (v) a shared responsibility (with the LCJ) for complaints, supported by the Judicial Conduct and Investigations Office, and accounting to Parliament for the operation of the complaints system as a whole;5 (vi) to accept, reject or request reconsideration of the individual selections made either by the JAC for vacancies in the High Court or by ad hoc panels for the most senior appointments (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • European Committee
    EUROPEAN COMMITTEE Tuesday 13 June 2000 (Afternoon) £5.00 Parliamentary copyright. Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body 2000. Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to the Copyright Unit, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ Fax 01603 723000, which is administering the copyright on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Produced and published in Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body by The Stationery Office Ltd. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office is independent of and separate from the c ompany now trading as The Stationery Office Ltd, which is responsible for printing and publishing Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body publications. CONTENTS Tuesday 13 June 2000 Col. EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL FUNDS ............................................................................................................. 725 CONVENER’S REPORT ............................................................................................................................ 742 EUROPEAN COMMITTEE 12th Meeting 2000, Session 1 CONVENER *Hugh Henry (Paisley South) (Lab) DEPU TY CONVENER *Cathy Jamieson (Carric k, Cumnoc k and Doon Valley) (Lab) COMMI TTEE MEMBERS *Dennis Canavan (Falkirk West) *Bruce Craw ford (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP) Dr Winnie Ewing (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Dr Sylvia Jac kson (Stirling) (Lab) *Ms Margo Mac Donald (Lothians) (SNP) *Maureen Mac millan (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) *David Mundell (South of Scotland) (Con) *Irene Oldfather (Cunninghame South) (Lab) Tavish Scott (Shetland) (LD) *Ben Wallace (North-East Scotland) (Con) *Allan Wilson (Cunninghame North) (Lab) *attended THE FOLLOWING MEMBER ALSO ATTENDED: Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP) WITNESS Professor David Bell (University of Stirling) ADVISER Professor John Bachtler CLERK TEAM LEADER Stephen Imrie ASSISTANT CLERK Dav id Simpson LOC ATION Committee Room 1 725 13 JUNE 2000 726 Scottish Parliament only those that pertain to Scotland.
    [Show full text]