DOCSLIB.ORG

Imagereal Capture

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Imagereal Capture THE ACT OF SETTLEMENT AND THE EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS BY KEVEN BooKER* and GEORGE WINTERTON** Following recent disagreement between the Commonwealth and Victorian Solicitors-General over whether the States have power to employ aliens in public offices in view of section 3 clause 5 of the Act of Settlement 1701 (U.K.), this Article considers whether that clause applies in the States and, if it does, whether they or the Commonwealth can amend or repeal it. These issues are examined in light of the common law on the employment of aliens in public office, the reasons for the enactment of the Act of Settlement, and the question whether, and to what extent, the doctrine of paramount force applies to legislation enacted prior to the establishment of a colony. The Article concludes that section 3 clause 5 did not apply in Australia, either by reception or by paramount force, although the common law on the employment of aliens applied by reception; and the common law did not disqualify naturalized persons from holding public office. The authors argue that in any event, Commonwealth legislation, validly enacted under the "Naturalization and aliens" power (section 51(xix)) has removed any disabilities the Act of Settlement might have imposed on the employment of naturalized persons. Moreover, pursuant to section 51 ( xxxviii), the Commonwealth could authorize the States, or any of them, to pass legislation repug­ nant to Imperial legislation extending to the State by paramount force. 1. Introduction Imperial statutes became part of the law operating in Australian colonies in two ways. Statutes intended to apply in a colony were said to operate there by paramount force.1 Statutes not intended specifically to apply in a colony, but forming part of the law of England at the date of settlement of the colony (or some later date set by legislation)2 and applicable to the circumstances of the colony, were said to apply by way of reception.3 A colony could repeal or amend statutes inherited by reception, but not those applying by paramount force. 4 So far as that limit on colonial legislative * LL.B. (Hons.) (W.A.); Lecturer in Law, The University of New South Wales. **LL.B. (Hons.), LL.M. (W.A.); Senior Lecturer in Law, The University of New South Wales. We would like to thank Mr Robert Spence for his assistance. 1 Infra, Part 5. The doctrine of paramount force applied to conquered or ceded colonies as well as to settled colonies. 2 The reception date is now set by statute in all Australian States. It is 25 July 1828 in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Tasmania: Australian Courts Act 1828 (9 Geo. IV c. 83) s. 24; 28 December 1836 in South Australia: Acts Interpretation Act 1915 (S.A.) s. 48; and 1 June 1829 in Western Australia: Inter­ pretation Act 1918 (W.A.) s. 43. 3 See generally Cooper v. Stuart (1889) 14 App. Cas. 286; Delohery v. Permanent Trustee Co. of New South Wales (1904) 1 C.L.R. 283; Quan Yick v. Hinds (1905) 2 C.L.R. 345; Dugan v. Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1979) 142 C.L.R. 583; 6 Halsbury's Laws of England (4th ed. 1974) para. 1196. The doctrine of reception did not necessarily apply to conquered or ceded colonies. 4 Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 (28 and 29 Vic. c. 63) s. 2. 212 1981] The Act of Settlement and the Employment of Aliens 213 power is concerned, Australian States are still "colonies".5 Unlike the Commonwealth Parliament,6 a State legislature cannot enact legislation repugnant to an Imperial Act applying in the State by paramount force. A recent dispute in Victoria over the operation of section 3 of the Act of Settlement 1701 (U.K.)1 shows how inconvenient this lack of legislative power can be. Section 3, inter alia,8 prohibits the employment of aliens in "any office or place of trust either civill or military". In January 1978 the Anti-Discrimination Bureau of the Victorian Premier's Department noted that section 3 would prevent the employment of aliens in certain public service positions.9 The Bureau referred to an opinion given in 1967 by the Victorian Crown Solicitor in which he had advised that the relevant part of section 3 was in force in Victoria.10 A private member's Bill to amend the Public Service Act 197 4 (Vic.) to eliminate discrimination against the employment of aliens in the public service was introduced in the Victorian Parliament in March 1980,11 Between the lapse of this Bill and its reintroduction in the next session of Parliament,12 the Victorian Solicitor­ General advised that the restriction imposed by the Act of Settlement on the employment of aliens in offices of trust applied in Victoria by paramount force.13 Consequent upon the Solicitor-General's advice, several senior Victorian public servants were stood down from their positions and the question was referred to the Commonwealth.14 The Commonwealth 5 China Shipping Co. v. South Australia (1979) 54 A.L.J.R. 57; Ukley v. Ukley [1977] V.R. 121. Contra Murphy J. in Bistricic v. Rokov (1976) 135 C.L.R. 552, 565-567 and China Shipping Co. v. South Australia (1979) 54 A.L.J.R. 57, 80-81. 6The Statute of Westminster 1931 (U.K.) s. 2 frees the Commonwealth from the operation of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865. The Statute of Westminster was adopted by the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 (Cth). 7 12 and 13 Wm. III c. 2 (hereafter referred to as "the Act of Settlement"). 8 See infra pp. 216-217 for the full text of s. 3. 9 Robin, Nationality Requirements for Entry into the Victorian Public Service, Anti-Discrimination Bureau of the Victorian Premier's Department (1978) 11. 1o Ibid. The opinion was on the eligibility of aliens for appointment to the teaching service: see Teaching Service Act 1958 (Vic.) s. 57 A. uSee Public Service (Employment of Aliens) Bill 1980, introduced by Messrs Cathie and Sidiropoulis on 25 March 1980; Vic. Pari. Deb. (Assembly), Vol. 349, 7348. The Bill sought to amend s. 30(1)(a)(i) of the Public Service Act 1974 (Vic.) by substituting "resident permanently in Australia" for "Australian citizen or a British subject", and by inserting a provision (s. 30A) declaring that persons who are not Australian citizens or British subjects may be appointed to the public service. The proposed s. 30A was expressed to be subject to s. 3 of the Act of Settlement 1701 "in so far as those provisions are in force in Victoria". 12 10 September 1980, Vic. Pari. Deb. (Assembly) 219. An identical Bill was introduced by Mr Sgro in the Legislative Council on the previous day: 9 September 1980, Vic. Par[. Deb. (Council) 13. 13 See question by Mr Walker and answer by Mr Hunt: 10 September 1980, Vic. Par[. Deb. (Council) 109 (and see also id. 183-185); question by Mr Wilkes and answer by Premier Hamer: 11 September 1980, Vic. Pari. Deb. (Assembly) 263; Ministerial Statement on the Act of Settlement 1701 (U.K.): 11 September 1980, Vic. Parl. Deb. (Assembly) 291, 292. See also The Age, 11 September 1980, 1; Sydney Morning Herald, 12 September 1980, 2; The Australian 12 September 1980, 3. For a summary of these events see Lindell, "Applicability in Australia of Section 3 of the Act of Settlement 1701" (1980) 54 A.L.J. 628. In a letter dated 21 October 1980 to one of the authors, the Victorian Attorney-General confirmed that the Solicitor-General had advised the Government that the Act of Settlement 1701 "is applicable to Victoria in respect of those positions referred to in section 3 ...". A short extract from the Solicitor-General's opinion appears in R. Miller, "Consti­ tutional Law" in R. Baxt (ed.), Annual Survey of Law 1980 (1981) 492, 513. 14 See question by Senator Missen and answer by the Attorney-General, Senator Durack: S. Deb., 1980, Vol. 86, 1056 (16 September 1980). 214 Federal Law Review [VOLUME 12 Solicitor-General advised that the relevant part of section 3 of the Act of Settlement 1701 (U.K.) was not in force in Victoria.15 The employees were then reinstated pending clarification of the issue and possible Commonwealth legislation to correct any Victorian legislative incapacity.16 This Article considers whether section 3 clause 5 of the Act of Settlement is in force in the Australian States-either by reception or by paramount force-and, if it is, how it might be amended or repealed without resort to the United Kingdom Parliament. 2. The purpose and content of the Act of Settlement The Bill of Rights 1689 (U.K.)17 settled the Crown on William and Mary, Prince and Princess of Orange. After they died the Crown was to go to the issue of Mary, upon failure of such issue to Princess Anne of Denmark and her issue, and finally to the issue of William. At the end of the seventeenth century there were no living issue of Mary to take the throne, and it seemed likely that both William and Anne would die without leaving living issue. The Act of Settlement was passed to supplement the succession provisions in the Bill of Rights and to protect further the rights and liberties of the subjects of the realm. The Act had four18 sections. Sections 1, 2, and 4 and parts of section 3 are still in force in the United Kingdom.19 Section 1 declared that after the provisions in the Bill of Rights, the next in line to the throne would be Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover, and the "heirs of her body being Protestants".
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Table of Statutes
    Table of Statutes Commonwealth Constitution: 297 s 9: 296 Ch III: 5, 14, 15, 234, 363, 370, 372, 391, s 10: 296 397, 398, 404-406, 410 s 11: 296 s 1: 391, 422, 436 s 12: 17 s 7: 417, 422, 423, 425, 428, 429, 432, s 13: 296 436, 441 s 14: 296 s 8: 436 s 15: 17, 18, 296 s 15: 180, 193 s 15(1): 6 s 16: 436 Australia (Request and Consent) Act s 24: 416, 417, 422-425, 428, 429, 432, 1985: 296 436, 441 Australian Capital Territory (Self-Gov- s 29: 422 ernment) 1988 s 30: 422, 436 s 22: 66 s 49: 317 Broadcasting Act 1942 s 51: 65 Pt IIID: 426 s 51(xxix): 233 Builders Labourers Federation (Cancel- s 51(xxxi): 380 lation of Registration) Act 1986: 367, s 51(xxxv): 426 370 s 51(xxxvii): 3 Builders Labourers Federation (Cancel- s 51(xxxviii): 3, 281, 285, 287, 288 lation of Registration – Conse- s 53: 191 quential Provisions) Act 1986: 367 s 57: 185, 192 s 7: 368 s 61: 391 Builders Labourers Federation Legis- s 71: 14, 384, 391, 396, 397, 399 lation Amendment Act 1990: 389 s 73: 384 Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902: 422 s 74: 273 Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904: s 77(iii): 14, 384, 396, 399, 405 367 s 80: 380 Constitution Alteration (State Debts) Act s 90: 66, 67 1929: 142 s 92: 380 Customs Act 1901: 66 s 105A: 142, 144, 148 Financial Agreements (Commonwealth s 105A(3): 144 Liability) Act 1932: 143 s 105A(5): 144 Financial Agreements Enforcement Act s 106: 78, 79, 234, 352, 371, 432, 440 1932: 143, 146, 152, 157 s 107: 356, 357 Pt II: 144 s 116: 380 Financial Agreements (State Legislation) s 117: 380 Act 1932: 148 s 128: 18, 115-117, 429, 434
    [Show full text]
  • Devolution, Debate and Change: Changing the UK’S Constitutional Settlements Carol Howells and Edwin Parks
    Chapter 2 Devolution, debate and change: Changing the UK’s constitutional settlements Carol Howells and Edwin Parks Abstract Devolution has been ‘a process not an event’ resulting in new constitutional settlements . This chapter covers the processes of devolution, processes which mirror the first 50 years of the Open University and the first 22 years of the OU Law School. The chapter explores the devolution of powers to parliaments in Scotland and Wales. It begins with the referendums of the early 1970s and traces events leading up to both the initial transfer of powers and those resulting in subsequent transfer of powers. The process has not been without its critics and the use of differing models helped create complexity re-enforcing historical legacies. Devolution created new legal orders and challenged accepted traditional constitutional theory. The story is not yet over. 1. Introduction The establishment of The Open University (OU) in 1969 changed the landscape of higher education in the United Kingdom (UK). Its mission of being ‘Open to people, places, methods and ideas’1 and its promotion of social justice through high quality education2 has challenged thinking around educational practices. In the 50 years since it was established it has transformed the lives of many through its work and partnerships. It has students in over 90% of UK postcodes3 and continues to hold a unique position within the UK’s Higher Education sector working across, and receiving funding from, all four UK nations. In celebrating its 50th anniversary its Vice Chancellor expressed pride in being the UK’s only four nations university.4 During the OU’s 50-year history there have been significant changes and challenges within the higher education landscape.
    [Show full text]
  • LSE Brexit: Welsh Independence: Can Brexit Awaken the Sleeping Dragon? Page 1 of 4
    LSE Brexit: Welsh independence: can Brexit awaken the sleeping dragon? Page 1 of 4 Welsh independence: can Brexit awaken the sleeping dragon? Wales is the only devolved nation within the UK that has never caused a stir in constitutional terms. This is because Welsh independence has remained largely a dormant political issue, both within Wales and within the wider UK context. Can Brexit awaken the sleeping dragon, asks Darryn Nyatanga (University of Liverpool)? Brexit does present the opportunity to awaken real discussion on the potential of Welsh Independence. This can be attributed to two reasons, firstly – independence could be the only way to ensure Welsh interests are met after Brexit. Also, there has been a growth in sub-state nationalism within the UK, exposed by the Brexit referendum and the withdrawal process, highlighting the point that the UK is united in name only. Welsh nationalism The agenda for Welsh independence can only arguably be pushed by a strong sense of nationalism. This is the case in both Scotland and Northern Ireland. In Scotland, nationalism has been spearheaded by the SNP. Scottish independence (and Scottish home rule – before the introduction of devolution in 1998) has long been the main objective for the SNP since its genesis. In the case of Northern Ireland, two main forms of national identity exist; British and Irish. The latter identity challenges the status quo of the UK’s unitary nature. Irish nationalism in political terms is spearheaded by Sinn Fein, who advocate for the constitutional status of Northern Ireland to change i.e. Irish (re)unification.
    [Show full text]
  • Brexit and Parliamentary Sovereignty Keith Ewing∗
    bs_bs_banner Brexit and Parliamentary Sovereignty Keith Ewing∗ This note addresses the implications of R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union for the legal principle of parliamentary sovereignty, and argues that the strong restatement of the latter is the most significant feature of the decision. The aim here is to show how traditional principle in the Dicey tradition has been strongly applied against the competing claims of EU law, the royal prerogative, the referendum and devolution. However, the note also argues that the claims relating to parliamentary sovereignty could have produced a different result and that the most compelling feature of the case was the argument that was not forcefully put by the Government, namely that Parliament had already provided sufficient authority for the triggering of Article 50. INTRODUCTION On 23 June 2016 the people of the United Kingdom and Gibraltar voted to leave the European Union. The Brexiters won by a slim majority (51.89 per cent to 48.11 per cent) on a 72 per cent turnout, and they lost comprehensively in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Brexiters nevertheless claimed that the Government had a mandate to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and to do so legally with prerogative power (and without parlia- mentary approval), a claim perhaps reinforced politically by the Conservative Party election manifesto in 2015.1 The latter had set in train the referendum process accompanied by a promise that the Conservatives if elected would re- spect the result, evidently not expecting the outcome delivered. The problem, however, is that the European Union Referendum Act 2015 was silent on the legal effects of the vote, perhaps reflecting the confidence of all concerned that the Brexiters would fail.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitution of the United Kingdom
    The Cambridge Law Journal http://journals.cambridge.org/CLJ Additional services for The Cambridge Law Journal: Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here The Constitution of the United Kingdom Rodney Brazier The Cambridge Law Journal / Volume 58 / Issue 01 / March 1999, pp 96 - 128 DOI: null, Published online: 08 September 2000 Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0008197399001063 How to cite this article: Rodney Brazier (1999). The Constitution of the United Kingdom. The Cambridge Law Journal, 58, pp 96-128 Request Permissions : Click here Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/CLJ, IP address: 86.185.243.202 on 23 Aug 2014 Cambridge Law Journal, 58(1), March 1999, pp. 96±128 Printed in Great Britain THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM Rodney Brazier* I. First Thoughts The Labour Government's diVusion of power both to new institutions and to citizens is designed to alter old constitutional settlements within the United Kingdom. By the end of this last Parliament of the twentieth century the British constitution will have been reshaped. The volume and detail of the legislation that is being brought forward to achieve this cannot be analysed adequately in one article. I intend, therefore, to concentrate here on the redrawing of legislative and executive authority between the component parts of the United Kingdom. Even doing that will require some selectivity. We need to see what will be the nature of the United Kingdom as a constitutional concept when those re-arrangements are in place. An appreciation is required of the limits on the powers that are being cededÐespecially in relation to Scotland, which was once an independent state and where many aspire to independence.
    [Show full text]
  • Statute Law Repeals: Nineteenth Report
    The Law Commission and The Scottish Law Commission (LAW COM No 333) (SCOT LAW COM No 227) STATUTE LAW REPEALS: NINETEENTH REPORT DRAFT STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL Presented to the Parliament of the United Kingdom by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice by Command of Her Majesty Laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Ministers April 2012 Cm 8330 £xx.xx SG/2012/39 ii The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission were set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Right Honourable Lord Justice Munby, Chairman Professor Elizabeth Cooke Mr David Hertzell Professor David Ormerod Miss Frances Patterson QC. The Chief Executive of the Law Commission is Elaine Lorimer. The Law Commission is located at Steel House, 11 Tothill Street, London SW1H 9LJ The Scottish Law Commissioners are: Laura J Dunlop QC Patrick Layden QC, TD Professor Hector L MacQueen Dr Andrew J M Steven The Chief Executive of the Scottish Law Commission is Malcolm McMillan. The Scottish Law Commission is located at 140 Causewayside, Edinburgh, EH9 1PR. The terms of this report were agreed on 7 March 2012. The text of this report is available on the Internet at: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk (See Publications > Statute Law Repeals reports) http://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk/law-reform-projects/joint-projects/statute-law-repeals iii LAW COMMISSION SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION STATUTE LAW REPEALS: NINETEENTH REPORT DRAFT STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL CONTENTS Paragraph Page REPORT 1 APPENDIX
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of the Union
    THE CULTURE of PROSPERITY THE CULTURE of PROSPERITY ROADS TO FREEDOM | NOVEMBER 2014 The Future of the Union by Vernon Bogdanor, Dafydd Elis-Thomas, Dominic Lawson and Hywel Williams www.li.com www.prosperity.com ROADS TO FREEDOM | 2 ABOUT THE LEGATUM INSTITUTE Front cover shows (left to right): The Legatum Institute is a charitable public policy think-tank whose Owain GlyndŴr (c.1349-c.1415 ). A direct descendant of the Princes of Powys (mid-Wales) mission is to help people lead more prosperous lives. The Institute and of Deheubarth (south-west Wales) Glyndŵr defines prosperity as wellbeing, not just wealth. Its Legatum Prosperity led the conventional life of a Welsh nobleman Index™ assesses a wide range of indicators including education, health, assimilated to English government until the social capital, entrepreneurship, and personal freedom to rank 142 late 1390s. But a quarrel in the late 1390s with Lord Grey de Ruthin, a Norman baron, countries. Published annually, the Index has become an essential tool for over landownership in north-east Wales turned governments around the world. Glyndŵr into a rebel with a cause. He led the national revolt that spread throughout the country Through research programmes including The Culture of Prosperity, from 1400 onwards and, aided by the French, he Transitions Forum, and the Economics of Prosperity, the Institute seeks won several major victories over English forces. to understand what drives and restrains national success and individual Edward I, King of England (1272-1307) whose flourishing. The Institute co-publishes with Foreign Policy magazine, the expansionist military campaigns sought to Democracy Lab, whose on-the-ground journalists report on political abolish the sovereign powers enjoyed by the Scottish Crown and the Welsh dynastic princes.
    [Show full text]
  • Form and Accessibility of the Law Applicable in Wales
    Law Commission Consultation Paper No 223 FORM AND ACCESSIBILITY OF THE LAW APPLICABLE IN WALES A Consultation Paper ii THE LAW COMMISSION – HOW WE CONSULT About the Commission: The Law Commission is the statutory independent body created by the Law Commissions Act 1965 to keep the law under review and to recommend reform where it is needed. The Law Commissioners are: The Rt Hon Lord Justice Lloyd Jones (Chairman), Stephen Lewis, Professor David Ormerod QC and Nicholas Paines QC. The Chief Executive is Elaine Lorimer. Topic of this consultation paper: The form and accessibility of the law applicable in Wales. Availability of materials: This consultation paper is available on our website in English and in Welsh at http://www.lawcom.gov.uk. Duration of the consultation: 9 July 2015 to 9 October 2015. How to respond Please send your responses either: By email to: [email protected] or By post to: Sarah Young, Law Commission, 1st Floor, Tower, Post Point 1.54, 52 Queen Anne’s Gate, London SW1H 9AG Tel: 020 3334 3953 If you send your comments by post, it would be helpful if, where possible, you also send them to us electronically. After the consultation: In the light of the responses we receive, we will decide our final recommendations and we will present them to the Welsh Government. Consultation Principles: The Law Commission follows the Consultation Principles set out by the Cabinet Office, which provide guidance on type and scale of consultation, duration, timing, accessibility and transparency. The Principles are available on the Cabinet Office website at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/consultation-principles-guidance.
    [Show full text]
  • A Summary of Recent Constitutional Reform in the United Kingdom Lesley Dingle
    International Journal of Legal Information the Official Journal of the International Association of Law Libraries Volume 33 Article 7 Issue 1 Spring 2005 1-1-2005 A Summary of Recent Constitutional Reform in the United Kingdom Lesley Dingle Bradley Miller Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/ijli The International Journal of Legal Information is produced by The nI ternational Association of Law Libraries. Recommended Citation Dingle, Lesley and Miller, Bradley (2005) "A Summary of Recent Constitutional Reform in the United Kingdom," International Journal of Legal Information: Vol. 33: Iss. 1, Article 7. Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/ijli/vol33/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in International Journal of Legal Information by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A summary of recent constitutional reform in the United Kingdom * ** LESLEY DINGLE AND BRADLEY MILLER Contents Present constitution: the status quo Background to post-1997 proposals for constitutional change Changes influenced by domestic policy post-1997 Reform of the House of Commons Reform of the House of Lords Judicial Reform Devolution Scottish Parliament Welsh Assembly Northern Ireland Assembly Devolution to English Regions Other areas of reform Monarchy and the royal prerogative Civil Service Electoral Law Proportional Representation (PR) Referenda Electoral procedures Freedom of Information legislation Changes influenced by European Legislation General European Union legislation Human Rights European Union Constitution Conclusions Present Constitution: the status quo The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland consists of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.1 *Foreign & International Law Librarian, Squire Law Library, University of Cambridge, UK.
    [Show full text]
  • Nationalism and Devolution: an Enquiry Into The
    Nationalism and Devolution: An Enquiry into the Changing Dynamics of the Territorial Constitution of the United Kingdom Gareth John Prys Evans Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) Aberystwyth Law School Aberystwyth University 2018 1 Declaration and Statements Word Count of thesis: 86,826 DECLARATION This work has not previously been accepted in substance for any degree and is not being concurrently submitted in candidature for any degree. Candidate name Gareth John Prys Evans Signature: Date STATEMENT 1 This thesis is the result of my own investigations, except where otherwise stated. Where *correction services have been used, the extent and nature of the correction is clearly marked in a footnote(s). Other sources are acknowledged by footnotes giving explicit references. A bibliography is appended. Signature: Date [*this refers to the extent to which the text has been corrected by others] STATEMENT 2 I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available for photocopying and for inter-library loan, and for the title and summary to be made available to outside organisations. Signature: Date NB: Candidates on whose behalf a bar on access (hard copy) has been approved by the University should use the following version of Statement 2: I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available for photocopying and for inter-library loans after expiry of a bar on access approved by Aberystwyth University. Signature: Date 2 Summary Candidate’s Surname/Family Name Evans Candidate’s Forenames (in full) Gareth John Prys Candidate for the Degree of PhD Academic year the work submitted 2018-19 for examination Summary: The United Kingdom is in a prolonged episode of constitutional unsettlement.
    [Show full text]
  • Devolution in Wales, 1998-2020
    BRIEFING PAPER Number CBP-8318, 6 April 2020 "A process, not an By David Torrance event": Devolution in Wales, 1998-2020 Contents: 1. Wales: constitutional position 2. Historical background 3. Government of Wales Act 1998 4. Richard Commission 5. Government of Wales Act 2006 6. Holtham Commission 7. 2011 referendum on law- making powers 8. Silk Commission I: Wales’ financial powers 9. Wales Act 2014 10. Silk Commission II: Wales' legislative powers 11. Wales Act 2017 12. Constitutional debates 13. Information and further reading 14. Political leaders in Wales 15. Chronology of devolution in Wales 16. Appendix www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary 2 'A process, not an event': Devolution in Wales, 1998-2020 Contents Summary 4 1. Wales: constitutional position 5 1.1 Reserved powers 5 1.2 UK Parliament 5 1.3 The European Union 6 1.4 Senedd Cymru/Welsh Parliament 7 1.5 How primary legislation is passed 7 2. Historical background 9 2.1 “Administrative devolution” 9 2.2 The Welsh Office 9 2.3 1979 devolution referendum 10 2.4 1997 devolution referendum 11 3. Government of Wales Act 1998 12 3.1 Government of Wales Bill 1997-98 12 3.2 First elections to the National Assembly 13 3.3 Criticisms of the Welsh devolution settlement 13 4. Richard Commission 14 4.1 Primary legislative powers 14 4.2 Structure of the Assembly 14 4.3 Electoral arrangements for the Assembly 15 4.4 Responses to the Richard Commission 15 5. Government of Wales Act 2006 16 5.1 Criticisms of the Government of Wales Act 2006 16 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Reforming Bribery HC
    Law Commission Reforming the law Reforming Bribery Law Commission Reforming Bribery Law Com No 313 Law Com No 313 The Law Commission (LAW COM No 313) REFORMING BRIBERY Laid before Parliament by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to section 3(2) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 19 November 2008 HC 928 London: The Stationery Office £34.55 0 Crown Copyright 2008 The text in this document (excluding the Royal Arms and other departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the document specified. Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. For any other use of this material please write to Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU or e-mail: [email protected] ISBN: 9780102958164 ii THE LAW COMMISSION The Law Commission was set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Right Honourable Lord Justice Etherton, Chairman Professor Elizabeth Cooke Mr David Hertzell Professor Jeremy Horder Mr Kenneth Parker QC The Chief Executive of the Law Commission is Mr William Arnold. The Law Commission is located at Steel House, 11 Tothill Street, London SW1H 9LJ. The terms of this report were agreed on 2 October 2008.
    [Show full text]