DOCSLIB.ORG

Statute Law Revision 17Th Report (SLC 193; LC 285)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Statute Law Revision 17Th Report (SLC 193; LC 285) [Coat of Arms] The Law Commission and The Scottish Law Commission (LAW COM No 285) (SCOT LAW COM No 193) STATUTE LAW REVISION: SEVENTEENTH REPORT DRAFT STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL Report on a Reference under Section 3(1)(e) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 Presented to the Parliament of the United Kingdom by the Lord High Chancellor by Command of Her Majesty Laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Ministers December 2003 Cm 6070 SE/2003/313 £xx.xx 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 Honourable Mr Justice Toulson, Chairman Professor Hugh Beale QC Mr Stuart Bridge Professor Martin Partington CBE Judge Alan Wilkie QC The Chief Executive of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Sayers and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ. The Scottish Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Lord Eassie, Chairman Professor Gerard Maher QC Professor Kenneth G C Reid Professor Joseph M Thomson Mr Colin J Tyre QC The Secretary of the Scottish Law Commission is Miss Jane L McLeod and its offices are at 140 Causewayside, Edinburgh EH9 1PR. The terms of this report were agreed on 17 November 2003. The text of this report is available on the Internet at: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk http://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk ii LAW COMMISSION SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION STATUTE LAW REVISION: SEVENTEENTH REPORT DRAFT STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL CONTENTS Paragraph Page REPORT 1 APPENDIX 1: DRAFT STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL 3 APPENDIX 2: EXPLANATORY NOTE ON THE DRAFT BILL 60 CLAUSES 1-3 60 SCHEDULE 1: REPEALS 61 PART 1 ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE 61 Group 1 - Judicial Committee of the Privy Council 1.2 61 Group 2 - Central Criminal Court (Prisons) Act 1881 1.10 63 Group 3 - Courts Act 1971 1.12 64 Group 4 - General Repeals 1.14 64 PART 2 AGRICULTURE 71 Group 1 Agricultural Development, Production and Marketing 2.2 71 Group 2 General Repeals 2.31 79 PART 3 ALLOTMENTS AND SMALLHOLDINGS 81 PART 4 AVIATION 90 PART 5 DEFUNCT BODIES 97 Group 1 - Armed Forces 5.2 97 Group 2 - Children 5.5 98 Group 3 - Civil Rights and Liberties 5.7 98 Group 4 - Education 5.10 99 Group 5 - Electricity 5.17 100 Group 6 - Fisheries 5.20 101 Group 7 - Gas 5.22 101 Group 8 - Mines, Minerals and Quarries 5.24 102 Group 9 - National Health Service 5.26 102 iii Paragraph Page Group 10 - National Heritage 5.32 103 Group 11 - Northern Ireland 5.35 104 Group 12 - Pensions and Superannuation 5.38 104 Group 13 - Ports and Harbours 5.42 105 Group 14 - Railways 5.46 106 Group 15 - Road Traffic 5.51 107 Group 16 - Savings Banks 5.54 108 Group 17 - Shipping and Navigation 5.57 108 Group 18 - Taxation 5.60 109 Group 19 - Telecommunications, Broadcasting and Films 5.62 109 Group 20 - Weights and Measures 5.67 110 PART 6 ECCLESIASTICAL 112 Group 1 - Clergy, Benefices and Pastoral Schemes 6.2 112 Group 2 - Property 6.10 114 Group 3 - Tithes 6.29 118 Group 4 - The Church in Wales 6.35 120 Group 5 - General Repeals 6.38 121 PART 7 EDUCATION 124 PART 8 EMPLOYMENT 128 PART 9 FINANCE 134 Group 1 - Consolidated Fund 9.2 134 Group 2 - Public Revenue and Expenditure 9.7 135 Group 3 - Public Works 9.13 137 Group 4 - Finance Acts 9.17 138 Group 5 - Car Tax 9.20 138 Group 6 - General Repeals 9.24 140 PART 10 LOCAL GOVERNMENT 143 Group 1 - Local Government Act 1972 10.2 143 Group 2 - Rate Support Grant 10.9 144 Group 3 - General Repeals 10.15 145 PART 11 PENSIONS 152 PART 12 PROPERTY 157 PART 13 PUBLIC HEALTH 161 PART 14 ROAD TRAFFIC 165 PART 15 SCOTTISH ACTS 174 PART 16 TRADE AND INDUSTRY 176 Group 1 - Specific Industries 16.2 176 Group 2 - General 16.17 179 iv Paragraph Page PART 17 MISCELLANEOUS 185 Group 1 - Animals 17.2 185 Group 2 - Banks and Building Societies 17.14 187 Group 3 - Betting, Gaming and Lotteries 17.21 188 Group 4 - Charities 17.31 190 Group 5 - Companies 17.36 191 Group 6 - Debt and Insolvency 17.43 193 Group 7 - Medicine 17.51 195 Group 8 - Mental Health 17.59 196 Group 9 - National Trust 17.66 198 Group 10 - Registration Concerning the Individual 17.74 199 Group 11 - General Repeals 17.84 202 SCHEDULE 2: CONSEQUENTIAL AND CONNECTED PROVISIONS 207 v THE LAW COMMISSION AND THE SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION STATUTE LAW REVISION: SEVENTEENTH REPORT Draft Statute Law (Repeals) Bill To the Right Honourable the Lord Falconer of Thoroton, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, and the Scottish Ministers 1. In pursuance of section 3(1)(d) of the Law Commissions Act 1965, we have prepared the draft Bill which is Appendix 1 and recommend that effect be given to the proposals contained in it. An explanatory note on the contents of the draft Bill forms Appendix 2. 2. The report recommends the repeal of enactments which have been identified, after detailed research and consultation, as being spent, obsolete, unnecessary or otherwise not now of practical utility. 1 The proposals have been widely canvassed with the government departments and other bodies concerned, including ‘the relevant authorities’ throughout Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.2 Full details of the proposals are set out in the Notes on the Bill which are available from the Law Commissions. 3. The report is submitted in pursuance of the Law Commissions’ programme on statute law. The broad objective of this programme is to modernise and simplify the statute book. (Signed) ROGER TOULSON RONALD D MACKAY Chairman, Law Commission Chairman, Scottish Law Commission HUGH BEALE GERARD MAHER STUART BRIDGE KENNETH G C REID MARTIN PARTINGTON JOSEPH M THOMSON ALAN WILKIE COLIN TYRE MICHAEL SAYERS MISS JANE L MCLEOD Chief Executive Secretary 17 November 2003 1 The enactments proposed for repeal are specified in Schedule 1 to the draft Bill. The Schedule is divided into Parts, some of which are subdivided into Groups. The Parts are, in accordance with the drafting practice adopted in Statute Law (Repeals) Acts since 1975, presented according to their alphabetical order of title with a Part at the end dealing with miscellaneous repeals. 2 Where the proposals extend to Wales, those consulted include the Wales Office and the Counsel General to the National Assembly for Wales (referred to in the report as ‘the relevant authorities in Wales’). Where the proposals extend to Scotland, those consulted include the Scottish Executive and the departments responsible for reserved matters in relation to Scotland (referred to in the report as ‘the relevant authorities in Scotland’). Where the proposals extend to Northern Ireland, those consulted include the Northern Ireland Office and the First Legislative Counsel for Northern Ireland (referred to in the report as ‘the relevant authorities in Northern Ireland’). 1 2 Appendix 1 - Statute Law (Repeals) Bill CONTENTS 1 Repeals and associated provisions 2Extent 3Short title Schedule 1 — Repeals Part 1 — Administration of Justice Part 2 — Agriculture Part 3 — Allotments and smallholdings Part 4 — Aviation Part 5 — Defunct bodies Part 6 — Ecclesiastical Part 7 — Education Part 8 — Employment Part 9 — Finance Part 10 — Local government Part 11 — Pensions Part 12 — Property Part 13 — Public health Part 14 — Road traffic Part 15 — Scottish Acts Part 16 — Trade and industry Part 17 — Miscellaneous Schedule 2 — Consequential and connected provisions 3 4 Statute Law (Repeals) Bill 1 DRAFT OF A BILL TO Promote the reform of the statute law by the repeal, in accordance with recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, of certain enactments which (except in so far as their effect is preserved) are no longer of practical utility, and to make other provision in connection with the repeal of those enactments. E IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present BParliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:— 1 Repeals and associated provisions (1) The enactments referred to in Schedule 1 are repealed, and the instruments referred to there are revoked, to the extent specified in the second column of that Schedule. (2) Schedule 2 (consequential and connected provisions) has effect. 5 2 Extent (1) This Act extends to Northern Ireland. (2) This Act also extends to the Isle of Man. (3) Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide— (a) that the repeal by this Act of any enactment specified in the Order shall 10 on a date so specified extend to any of the Channel Islands or any British overseas territory, and (b) that any provision of Schedule 2 specified in the Order shall on a date so specified extend to any of the Channel Islands or any British overseas territory subject to any modification so specified. 15 (4) Except as provided by an order under subsection (3), this Act does not repeal or amend any enactment so far as the enactment forms part of the law of a country outside the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man. 5 2 Statute Law (Repeals) Bill (5) Subsections (3) and (4) apply to revocation of the whole or part of an instrument as they apply to repeal of an enactment. 3 Short title This Act may be cited as the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 2004.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lord Chief Justice Delegation of Statutory Functions
    Delegation of Statutory Functions Lord Chief Justice – Delegation of Statutory Functions Introduction The Lord Chief Justice has a number of statutory functions, the exercise of which may be delegated to a nominated judicial office holder (as defined by section 109(4) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (the 2005 Act). This document sets out which judicial office holder has been nominated to exercise specific delegable statutory functions. Section 109(4) of the 2005 Act defines a judicial office holder as either a senior judge or holder of an office listed in schedule 14 to that Act. A senior judge, as defined by s109(5) of the 2005 Act refers to the following: the Master of the Rolls; President of the Queen's Bench Division; President of the Family Division; Chancellor of the High Court; Senior President of Tribunals; Lord or Lady Justice of Appeal; or a puisne judge of the High Court. Only the nominated judicial office holder to whom a function is delegated may exercise it. Exercise of the delegated functions cannot be sub- delegated. The nominated judicial office holder may however seek the advice and support of others in the exercise of the delegated functions. Where delegations are referred to as being delegated prospectively1, the delegation takes effect when the substantive statutory provision enters into force. The schedule is correct as at 12 May 2015.2 The delegations are currently subject to review by the Lord Chief Justice and a revised schedule will be published later in 2015. 1 See Interpretation Act 1978, section 13. 2 The LCJ has on three occasions suspended various delegations in order to make specific Practice Directions.
    [Show full text]
  • PUBLIC RECORDS ACT 1958 (C
    PUBLIC RECORDS ACT 1958 (c. 51)i, ii An Act to make new provision with respect to public records and the Public Record Office, and for connected purposes. [23rd July 1958] General responsibility of the Lord Chancellor for public records. 1. - (1) The direction of the Public Record Office shall be transferred from the Master of the Rolls to the Lord Chancellor, and the Lord Chancellor shall be generally responsible for the execution of this Act and shall supervise the care and preservation of public records. (2) There shall be an Advisory Council on Public Records to advise the Lord Chancellor on matters concerning public records in general and, in particular, on those aspects of the work of the Public Record Office which affect members of the public who make use of the facilities provided by the Public Record Office. The Master of the Rolls shall be chairman of the said Council and the remaining members of the Council shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor on such terms as he may specify. [(2A) The matters on which the Advisory Council on Public Records may advise the Lord Chancellor include matters relating to the application of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to information contained in public records which are historical records within the meaning of Part VI of that Act.iii] (3) The Lord Chancellor shall in every year lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the work of the Public Record Office, which shall include any report made to him by the Advisory Council on Public Records.
    [Show full text]
  • Statute Law Repeals: Consultation Paper Courts and Administration of Justice – Proposed Repeals
    Statute Law Repeals: Consultation Paper Courts and Administration of Justice – Proposed Repeals SLR 04/09: Closing date for responses – 29 January 2010 BACKGROUND NOTES ON STATUTE LAW REPEALS (SLR) What is it? 1. Our SLR work involves repealing statutes that are no longer of practical utility. The purpose is to modernise and simplify the statute book, thereby reducing its size and thus saving the time of lawyers and others who use it. This in turn helps to avoid unnecessary costs. It also stops people being misled by obsolete laws that masquerade as live law. If an Act features still in the statute book and is referred to in text-books, people reasonably enough assume that it must mean something. Who does it? 2. Our SLR work is carried out by the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission pursuant to section 3(1) of the Law Commissions Act 1965. Section 3(1) imposes a duty on both Commissions to keep the law under review “with a view to its systematic development and reform, including in particular ... the repeal of obsolete and unnecessary enactments, the reduction of the number of separate enactments and generally the simplification and modernisation of the law”. Statute Law (Repeals) Bill 3. Implementation of the Commissions’ SLR proposals is by means of special Statute Law (Repeals) Bills. 18 such Bills have been enacted since 1965 repealing more than 2000 whole Acts and achieving partial repeals in thousands of others. Broadly speaking the remit of a Statute Law (Repeals) Bill extends to any enactment passed at Westminster. Accordingly it is capable of repealing obsolete statutory text throughout the United Kingdom (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • The High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991
    Status: This is the original version (as it was originally made). STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 1991 No. 724 (L.5) COUNTY COURTS SUPREME COURT OF ENGLAND AND WALES The High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991 Made - - - - 19th March 1991 Coming into force - - 1st July 1991 The Lord Chancellor, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by sections 1 and 120 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990(1), having consulted as required by section 1(9) of that Act, hereby makes the following Order a draft of which has, in accordance with section 120(4) of that Act, been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament:— Title and commencement 1. This Order may be cited as the High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991 and shall come into force on 1st July 1991. Jurisdiction 2.—(1) A county court shall have jurisdiction under— (a) sections 30, 146 and 147 of the Law of Property Act 1925(2), (b) section 58C of the Trade Marks Act 1938(3), (c) section 26 of the Arbitration Act 1950(4), (d) section 63(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954(5), (e) section 28(3) of the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act 1969(6), (1) 1990 c. 41. (2) 15 & 16 Geo. 5 c.20; relevant amendments were made by the County Courts Act 1984 (c. 28), section 148(1) andPart II of Schedule 2. (3) 1 & 2 Geo. 6 c.22; section 58C was inserted by section 300 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c.
    [Show full text]
  • Imprisonment and the Separation of Judicial Power: a Defence of a Categorical Immunity from Non-Criminal Detention
    IMPRISONMENT AND THE SEPARATION OF JUDICIAL POWER: A DEFENCE OF A CATEGORICAL IMMUNITY FROM NON-CRIMINAL DETENTION J EFFREY S TEVEN G ORDON* [e fundamental principle that no person may be deprived of liberty without criminal conviction has deteriorated. Despite a robust assertion of the principle by Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ in Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration, subsequent jurisprudence has eroded it and revealed stark division amongst the Justices of the High Court. is article clarifies the contours of the disagreement and defends the proposition that, subject to a limited number of categorical exceptions, ch III of the Constitution permits the involuntary detention of a person in custody only as a consequential step in the adjudication of the criminal guilt of that person for past acts. is article proposes a methodology for creating new categories of permitted non-criminal detention and applies that methodology to test the constitutionality of the interim control orders considered in omas v Mowbray.] C ONTENTS I Introduction ............................................................................................................... 42 II Legislative Power, Judicial Power and Imprisonment .......................................... 46 A From Which Section Does the So-Called ‘Constitutional Immunity’ from Executive Detention Originate? ........................................................ 51 1 Does the Legislative Power of the Commonwealth Conferred by Section 51 Extend to Authorising Imprisonment Generally? ............................................................... 52 2 Does Chapter III Have Any Operation When Parliament Enacts a Law Authorising Imprisonment? ................................... 55 * BSc (Adv) (Hons), LLB (Hons) (Syd), LLM (Columbia). Sincerest thanks to Peter Gerangelos for reading a dra, for generous advice, and for sparking my interest during his fascinating course on Advanced Constitutional Law at the University of Sydney.
    [Show full text]
  • Time for a Gastric Band
    Journal of Politics and Law; Vol. 6, No. 3; 2013 ISSN 1913-9047 E-ISSN 1913-9055 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Modernising the English Court System - Time for a Gastric Band Graham S McBain1 1 Solicitor. MA (Cantab), LLB (Cantab), LLM (Harv). Open Scholar, Peterhouse, Cambridge. Fulbright Scholar, Harvard Law School. UK Correspondence: Graham S McBain, 21 Millmead Terrace, Guildford, Surrey GU2 4AT, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Received: March 11, 2013 Accepted: April 23, 2013 Online Published: August 30, 2013 doi:10.5539/jpl.v6n3p17 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jpl.v6n3p17 Abstract There is a lot in the newspapers these days about human obesity and its detrimental effect on human health - as well as on the health budget. Indeed, statistics suggest that one in five adults in the United Kingdom is now clinically obese. What applies to human beings can also apply to human institutions and it is asserted that our legal system is clinically obese. It needs a gastric band. Why is our legal system clinically obese ? First, the volume of English primary - and subordinate - legislation is growing exponentially 1 and, at this rate, it will start to become like that of the United States. Thus, it needs to be curtailed since the direct - and indirect - cost of all this is huge.2 Second, the present court system dates from the Victorian era and it creaks. Distinctly. In what way? There are too many obsolete courts; There are too many courts which - while not obsolete – should be merged with others; The court system is replete with anomalies and there are too many jurisdictional and procedural issues; The domestic court structure is a four tier system - when it should only be three tier; The complexity of the court system is such that it is not understood by lawyers -far less by the general public.
    [Show full text]
  • Groups, Governance and the Development of UK Alcohol Policy: an Adversarial Policy Communities Approach
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Online Repository of Birkbeck Institutional Theses Groups, governance and the development of UK alcohol policy: An Adversarial Policy Communities Approach Gareth Paul Barrett A thesis presented for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Politics Birkbeck, University of London January 2020 1 Declaration of Work I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the PhD degree of the University of London is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others. The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. 2 Abstract The governance of UK alcohol policy looks like a textbook case of decision-making by a closed community of policymakers and industry insiders, but this thesis challenges this view. Drawing on Jordan and Richardson’s policy communities approach and Dudley and Richardson’s later work on adversarial policy communities, it examines the complex development of UK alcohol policy using archival sources, government and pressure group reports, news releases and historic media coverage going back over a century. The primary focus of this research is Westminster, but the importance of subnational policy communities is also considered through an examination of Scottish alcohol policy development. Through case studies of four key areas of UK alcohol policy – licensing, drink- driving, pricing and wider alcohol strategies – this thesis finds that the governance of UK alcohol policy is formed within policy communities, but ones that are much less closed and much more adversarial than traditionally thought.
    [Show full text]
  • Court Reform in England
    Comments COURT REFORM IN ENGLAND A reading of the Beeching report' suggests that the English court reform which entered into force on 1 January 1972 was the result of purely domestic considerations. The members of the Commission make no reference to the civil law countries which Great Britain will join in an important economic and political regional arrangement. Yet even a cursory examination of the effects of the reform on the administration of justice in England and Wales suggests that English courts now resemble more closely their counterparts in Western Eu- rope. It should be stated at the outset that the new organization of Eng- lish courts is by no means the result of the 1971 Act alone. The Act crowned the work of various legislative measures which have brought gradual change for a period of well over a century, including the Judicature Acts 1873-75, the Interpretation Act 1889, the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925, the Administration of Justice Act 1933, the County Courts Act 1934, the Criminal Appeal Act 1966 and the Criminal Law Act 1967. The reform culminates a prolonged process of response to social change affecting the legal structure in England. Its effect was to divorce the organization of the courts from tradition and history in order to achieve efficiency and to adapt the courts to new tasks and duties which they must meet in new social and economic conditions. While the earlier acts, including the 1966 Criminal Appeal Act, modernized the structure of the Supreme Court of Judicature, the 1971 Act extended modern court structure to the intermediate level, creating the new Crown Court, and provided for the regular admin- istration of justice in civil matters by the High Court in England and Wales, outside the Royal Courts in London.
    [Show full text]
  • Statute Law Revision Bill 2007 ————————
    ———————— AN BILLE UM ATHCHO´ IRIU´ AN DLI´ REACHTU´ IL 2007 STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL 2007 ———————— Mar a tionscnaı´odh As initiated ———————— ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section 1. Definitions. 2. General statute law revision repeal and saver. 3. Specific repeals. 4. Assignment of short titles. 5. Amendment of Short Titles Act 1896. 6. Amendment of Short Titles Act 1962. 7. Miscellaneous amendments to post-1800 short titles. 8. Evidence of certain early statutes, etc. 9. Savings. 10. Short title and collective citation. SCHEDULE 1 Statutes retained PART 1 Pre-Union Irish Statutes 1169 to 1800 PART 2 Statutes of England 1066 to 1706 PART 3 Statutes of Great Britain 1707 to 1800 PART 4 Statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 1801 to 1922 [No. 5 of 2007] SCHEDULE 2 Statutes Specifically Repealed PART 1 Pre-Union Irish Statutes 1169 to 1800 PART 2 Statutes of England 1066 to 1706 PART 3 Statutes of Great Britain 1707 to 1800 PART 4 Statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 1801 to 1922 ———————— 2 Acts Referred to Bill of Rights 1688 1 Will. & Mary, Sess. 2. c. 2 Documentary Evidence Act 1868 31 & 32 Vict., c. 37 Documentary Evidence Act 1882 45 & 46 Vict., c. 9 Dower Act, 1297 25 Edw. 1, Magna Carta, c. 7 Drainage and Improvement of Lands Supplemental Act (Ireland) (No. 2) 1867 31 & 32 Vict., c. 3 Dublin Hospitals Regulation Act 1856 19 & 20 Vict., c. 110 Evidence Act 1845 8 & 9 Vict., c. 113 Forfeiture Act 1639 15 Chas., 1. c. 3 General Pier and Harbour Act 1861 Amendment Act 1862 25 & 26 Vict., c.
    [Show full text]
  • Transport Act 1981 Is up to Date with All Changes Known to Be in Force on Or Before 15 May 2021
    Status: Point in time view as at 07/06/2002. This version of this Act contains provisions that are prospective. Changes to legislation: Transport Act 1981 is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 15 May 2021. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations. (See end of Document for details) Transport Act 1981 1981 CHAPTER 56 An Act to make provision with respect to the disposal by the British Railways Board of part of their undertaking, property, rights and liabilities; to provide for the reconstitution of the British Transport Docks Board under the name of Associated British Ports and to confer on a company powers over that body corresponding to the powers of a holding company over a wholly-owned subsidiary; to dissolve the National Ports Council and amend the Harbours Act 1964; to make further provision for promoting road safety; to make provision with respect to road humps; to provide a new basis of vehicle excise duty for goods vehicles; to amend the law as to the payments to be made for cab licences and cab drivers’ licences; to make provision for grants to assist the provision of facilities for freight haulage by inland waterway; to make provision with respect to railway fires; to amend Schedules 7 and 8 to the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981; and for connected purposes. [31st July 1981] F1 PART I Textual Amendments F1 Pt. I (ss.
    [Show full text]
  • Groups, Governance and the Development of UK Al- Cohol Policy: an Adversarial Policy Communities Ap- Proach
    ORBIT-OnlineRepository ofBirkbeckInstitutionalTheses Enabling Open Access to Birkbeck’s Research Degree output Groups, governance and the development of UK al- cohol policy: an adversarial policy communities ap- proach https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/40473/ Version: Full Version Citation: Barrett, Gareth Paul (2020) Groups, governance and the de- velopment of UK alcohol policy: an adversarial policy communities ap- proach. [Thesis] (Unpublished) c 2020 The Author(s) All material available through ORBIT is protected by intellectual property law, including copy- right law. Any use made of the contents should comply with the relevant law. Deposit Guide Contact: email Groups, governance and the development of UK alcohol policy: An Adversarial Policy Communities Approach Gareth Paul Barrett A thesis presented for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Politics Birkbeck, University of London January 2020 1 Declaration of Work I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the PhD degree of the University of London is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others. The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. 2 Abstract The governance of UK alcohol policy looks like a textbook case of decision-making by a closed community of policymakers and industry insiders, but this thesis challenges this view. Drawing on Jordan and Richardson’s policy communities approach and Dudley and Richardson’s later work on adversarial policy communities, it examines the complex development of UK alcohol policy using archival sources, government and pressure group reports, news releases and historic media coverage going back over a century.
    [Show full text]
  • Standing Committee on Judicial
    Chapter 3 : The British Experience 3.01 In the Mason Report, the case of Britain is presented as one of the jurisdictions where there is an absolute prohibition against reduction of judicial remuneration. 1 The existing British system of determination of judicial remuneration and the latest review on judicial salaries have also been discussed in the Mason Report. On the issue of reduction of remuneration in the United Kingdom, the following passages are relevant. 3.12 In 1760 the Commissions and Salaries of Judges Act2 made explicit what may have been implicit in the Act of Settlement. It secured the payment of the judges’ salaries without reduction so long as the judge’s commission continued and remained in force. The Act did not apply to colonial judges. 3.14 More recently, the Courts Act 1971 and the Supreme Court Act 1981, ss 12(1) and (3), have expressly provided that the salaries of Circuit Judges and Supreme Court Judges respectively “may be increased but not reduced”. 3.02 The 1760 Act is also referred to in the context of the discussion of the Australian position in the Mason Report – 3.28 Section 40 of the Constitution Act 1855 (NSW) provided for judicial remuneration but reverted to the earlier wording of the Commissions and Salaries of Judges Act 1760 (Imp). It provided that salaries fixed by Act of Parliament shall be paid and payable to every judge for the time being so long as their commissions should continue and remain in force. No express reference was made to the prohibition of the diminution of a judge’s salary.
    [Show full text]