DOCSLIB.ORG

Report of the Independent Commission on Referendums

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report of the Independent Commission on Referendums Report of the Independent Commission on Referendums INDEPENDENT COMMISSION ON July 2018 REFERENDUMS ISBN: 978-1-903903- 83-4 Published by the Constitution Unit School of Public Policy University College London 29-31 Tavistock Square London WC1H 9QU Tel: 020 7679 4977 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit ©The Constitution Unit, UCL July 2018 This report is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, hired out or otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser. First Published July 2018 1 Report of the Independent Commission on Referendums INDEPENDENT COMMISSION ON REFERENDUMS 2 Report of the Independent Commission on Referendums 3 Contents Lists of Tables, Figures and Boxes 4 Foreword 5 Commission members 6 Commission Secretariat 8 Executive Summary 9 Introduction 13 Part 1: Background Chapter 1 – The Use of Referendums Worldwide 19 Chapter 2 – The Use of Referendums in the UK 31 Chapter 3 – Regulating Referendums: History and Debates 47 Part 2: The Role of Referendums in Democracy Chapter 4 – Referendums and Democracy 57 Chapter 5 – Calling Referendums 71 Chapter 6 – Legislating for a Referendum 81 Chapter 7 – Preparation for a Referendum 90 Chapter 8 – The Referendum Question 101 Chapter 9 – Thresholds and Other Safeguards 110 Part 3: The Regulation of Referendum Campaigns Chapter 10 – The Role of Government in Referendum Campaigns 123 Chapter 11 – Lead Campaigners 134 Chapter 12 – Campaign Finance 145 Chapter 13 – Quality of Discourse 159 Chapter 14 – Regulation of Online Campaigning 178 Part 4: Implementation Chapter 15 – Implementing the Commission’s Recommendations 192 Conclusions and Recommendations 201 Appendix: List of Responses to Expert Consultation 210 Reference list 211 4 Report of the Independent Commission on Referendums List of Tables, Figures and Boxes LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF BOXES 1.1. 19 2.1. 34 Frequency of national referendums in sovereign states, UK referendums that never happened by decade 2.2. 39 1.2. 20 Topics on which referendums in the UK are now legally State-wide referendums in stable democracies since required 1990, by country 5.1. 74 1.3. 22 The Danish rejective referendum Support for referendums around the world, 2014 7.1. 91 1.4. 23 The Scottish Constitutional Convention Change in support for referendums around the world, 7.2. 93 2004–14 Ireland’s Constitutional Convention and Citizens’ 1.5. 24 Assembly State-wide referendums in democratic countries since 7.3. 94 1990, excluding Switzerland, by topic Canada’s citizens’ assemblies on electoral reform 1.6. 28 7.4. 98 The process of decision-making in five recent Principles of citizens’ assembly design referendums around the world 7.5. 99 2.1. 43 The Citizens’ Assembly on Social Care Support for the use of referendums in the UK 9.1. 111 5.1. 78 Electorate thresholds in the 1979 devolution Success of citizen-initiated referendums in democratic referendums countries since 1990, excluding Switzerland 9.2. 112 10.1. 124 Turnout thresholds in Italy Government leaflet from 1975 referendum 10.1. 125 13.1. 171 Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, Referendum Communication from Vote Leave section 125 13.2. 171 Referendum Communication from Stronger In 10.2. 127 The UK government leaflet on the EU referendum LIST OF TABLES 11.1. 135 2.1. 32 Designation of lead campaigners at the 2016 EU National and regional referendums in the UK, 1973–2016 referendum 2.2. 44 11.2. 137 UK public attitudes to the use of referendums after the Designation of lead campaigners at the 2011 Welsh EU referendum devolution referendum 3.1. 51 11.3. 143 Principal deviations from PPERA in recent referendums Ofcom’s fit and proper person test 8.1. 105 12.1. 150 Options in the 1992/3 New Zealand electoral reform Allocation of public funding by the Dutch Referendum referendums Commission 8.2. 106 13.1. 163 Options in the 2015/16 New Zealand flag referendums Regulating truth in South Australia 9.1. 114 13.2. 165 Simulation applying threshold requirements to past UK Information provision in Ireland and New Zealand referendums 13.3. 167 11.1. 136 Citizen Initiative Reviews in Oregon Lead campaigners in referendums since 2000 14.1. 185 12.1. 147 Current restrictions on political advertising in the Grants available to lead campaigners at post-PPERA broadcast media referendums 15.1. 194 12.2. 148 Checklist for those considering calling for a referendum Spending limits for registered referendum campaigners at the 2016 EU referendum 13.1. 161 Public opinion on the conduct of the EU referendum campaign 5 Foreword The current legal framework for conducting referendums in the UK was laid down in 2000. It was based on the recommendations of two reports: of the Nairne Commission on the Conduct of Referendums, which was co- sponsored by the Constitution Unit, in 1996; and of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, in 1998. Twenty years and several referendums later, it is time for a fresh look. The world has moved on, not least through the rise of online campaigning. And we have much more experience of referendums – both in the UK and around the world – to learn from. The quality of the members who accepted an invitation to join a new Commission confirms the need to take stock. The five referendums that have been held under the current legislative framework, including the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence and the 2016 referendum on whether to leave the European Union, provide plenty of scope for reflection on the pros and cons of referendums and how to run them. Throughout our work we have been aware that recent experience has generated strong views about referendums themselves as well as about their subject-matter. Many people have sent us evidence or have attended one of the seminars we have held in Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh and London. That has been a great benefit and we are very grateful to them. But we have been equally aware of the danger of our work being unduly influenced by very recent debate which is still ongoing. We have done our best to learn from recent experience but to focus on the future and a wide range of possibly quite different circumstances. It falls to others to judge whether we have succeeded. The members of the Commission were not invited to take part because they were sure to be of one mind. As well as their expertise and relevant experience, it was expected that they would hold a variety of views. In the event, they have been a very easy group to chair because each member has been ready to express a personal view but has recognised the need to collaborate with others. We all owe a great debt to the team from the Constitution Unit: Meg Russell, Alan Renwick, Jess Sargeant and Edd Rowe. We would have made no progress without their knowledge of referendums in the UK and across the world and their skill and speed in preparing and revising draft papers on every aspect of our terms of reference. They played a full part in all our discussions but, whilst acknowledging how much we owe them, the members of the Commission accept full responsibility for the conclusions and recommendations in the report. Joe Pilling Chair of the Independent Commission on Referendums 6 Report of the Independent Commission on Referendums Commission Members Commission Chair: Sir Joseph Pilling KCB The Rt Rev. the Lord Eames OM Joe Pilling has previously served as both Director Robin Eames was Anglican Archbishop of Armagh and General of the Prison Service and Permanent Secretary Primate of all Ireland from 1986 to 2006. He is an active of the Northern Ireland Office. Since leaving the civil Crossbench peer and a member of the Privileges and service in 2005 he has been involved in several reviews Conduct Committee of the House of Lords. Along with covering, for example, the Civil Aviation Authority, the other church leaders, he had a key role in the peace 30 Years Rule and the Independent Press Standards process in Northern Ireland, where there was a Organisation. He is a current or former trustee of referendum on the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. several charities. Rt Hon Dame Cheryl Gillan MP Rt Hon Dominic Grieve QC MP Cheryl Gillan has been Conservative Member of Dominic Grieve has been Conservative Member of Parliament for Chesham and Amersham since 1992. Parliament for Beaconsfield since 1997. He was Attorney Born in Cardiff, she was Secretary of State for Wales General for England and Advocate General for Northern (2010–12), overseeing the Welsh devolution referendum Ireland from 2010 to 2014. He had a career in law before of 2011. She is a member of the House of Commons entering politics and was appointed a Queen’s Counsel in Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs 2008. He has been chair of parliament’s Intelligence and Committee, and represents the UK on the Parliamentary Security Committee since 2015, and also chairs the Assembly of the Council of Europe, where she is All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Rule of Law. Rapporteur for an inquiry into referendum rules. Sue Inglish Seema Malhotra MP Sue Inglish was Head of Political Programmes, Seema Malhotra has been Labour Member of Analysis, and Research at the BBC between 2005 and Parliament for Feltham and Heston since December 2015. Before joining the BBC, she worked for ITN 2011. She is a former management consultant who between 1983 and 2001, where amongst other roles worked for Accenture and PriceWaterhouseCoopers.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Law and Constitution
    Commission on Justice in Wales: Supplementary evidence of the Welsh Government to the Commission on Justice in Wales Contents Law and the Constitution 1 History and evolution 1 Problems operating Part 4 of the Government of Wales Act from 2011 onwards 4 Draft Wales Bill (2015) 7 Wales Act 2017 9 Accessibility of the law in Wales (and England) 10 Government and Laws in Wales Bill 12 Implications of creating a Welsh legal jurisdiction 15 Conclusion 18 Mae’r ddogfen yma hefyd ar gael yn Gymraeg. This document is also available in Welsh. © Crown copyright 2018 2 | Supplementary evidence of the WelshWG35635 Government Digital to ISBN the 978-1-78937-837-5 Commission on Justice in Wales Law and the Constitution 1. This paper is supplementary to the Welsh on designing a system of government that is the Government’s submission of 4 June 2018. most effective and produces the best outcomes for It focusses specifically on the law and the legal the people of Wales. Instead we have constitutional jurisdiction and its impact on government in Wales. arrangements which are often complex, confusing It also considers the potential impact of creating and incoherent. a Welsh legal jurisdiction and devolving the justice 5. One of the key junctures came in 2005 with system on the legal professions in Wales. the proposal to create what was to become a fully 2. The paper explores the incremental and fledged legislature for Wales. The advent of full piecemeal way in which Wales’ current system law making powers was a seminal moment and of devolved government has developed.
    [Show full text]
  • Download PDF on Financial Privilege
    Report Financial Privilege The Undoubted and Sole Right of the Commons? Sir Malcolm Jack KCB PhD FSA Richard Reid PhD FINANCIAL PRIVILEGE THE UNDOUBTED AND SOLE RIGHT OF THE COMMONS? By Sir Malcolm Jack KCB PhD FSA and Richard Reid PhD Acknowlegements The authors thank The Constitution Society for commissioning and publishing this paper. First published in Great Britain in 2016 by The Constitution Society Top Floor, 61 Petty France London SW1H 9EU www.consoc.org.uk © The Constitution Society ISBN: 978-0-9954703-0-9 © Malcolm Jack and Richard Reid 2016. All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the publisher of this book. FINANCIAL PRIVILEGE 3 Contents Acknowlegements 2 About the Authors 4 Summary 5 PART 1 Conventions in Respect of Financial Privilege 6 PART 2 Parliament Acts 19 PART 3 Handling of Bills with Financial Provisions 30 PART 4 Secondary Legislation 41 PART 5 The Strathclyde Review 51 Appendix 1 Parliament Act 1911 62 Appendix 2 Parliament Act 1949 67 4 FINANCIAL PRIVILEGE About the Authors Sir Malcolm Jack was Clerk of the House of Commons from 2006–2011. He is editor of the current, twenty-fourth edition of Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice, 2011. He lectures and writes on constitutional and historical subjects, having published widely on the history of ideas as well as on aspects of British, European and South African history.
    [Show full text]
  • Procedures of Ratification of Mixed Agreements
    Directorate-General for the Presidency Relations with National Parliaments Legislative Dialogue Unit National Parliaments Background Briefing (November 2016) PROCEDURES OF RATIFICATION OF MIXED AGREEMENTS SUMMARY NATIONAL/FEDERAL REGIONAL POSSIBLE COUNTRY LEVEL LEVEL REFERENDUM Approval Chambers Approval Austria (AT) ✔ 2/2 ✘ ✔ Belgium (BE) ✔ 2/2 ✔ ✘ Bulgaria (BG) ✔ 1/1 ✘ ✔ Croatia (HR) ✔ 1/1 ✘ ✔ Cyprus (CY) ✔ 1/1 ✘ ✘ Czech Republic (CZ) ✔ 2/2 ✘ ✘ Denmark (DK) ✔ 1/1 ✘ ✔ Estonia (EE) ✔ 1/1 ✘ ✘ Finland (FI) ✔ 1/1 ✘ ✘ France (FR) ✔ 2/2 ✘ ✔ Germany (DE) ✔ 2/2 ✘ ✘ Greece (EL) ✔ 1/1 ✘ ✔ Hungary (HU) ✔ 1/1 ✘ ✘ Ireland (IE) ✔ 1/2 ✘ ✔ Italy (IT) ✔ 2/2 ✘ ✘ Latvia (LV) ✔ 1/1 ✘ ✘ Lithuania (LT) ✔ 1/1 ✘ ✔ Luxembourg (LU) ✔ 1/1 ✘ ✘ Malta (MT) ✘ 0/1 ✘ ✘ The Netherlands (NL) ✔ 2/2 ✘ ✔ Poland (PL) ✔ 2/2 ✘ ✔ Portugal (PT) ✔ 1/1 ✘ ✘ Romania (RO) ✔ 2/2 ✘ ✔ Slovakia (SK) ✔ 1/1 ✘ ✔ Slovenia (SI) ✔ 1/2 ✘ ✘ Spain (ES) ✔ 2/2 ✘ ✘ Sweden (SE) ✔ 1/1 ✘ ✘ United Kingdom (UK) ✔ 2/2 ✘ ✔ 27/28 Member States 14/28 TOTAL 1 Member State 38/41 Federal Chambers Member States [email protected] B-1047 Brussels - Tel. +32 2 28 43821 SOURCES NOTE: The information provided in this document is the product of research into national constitutions of EU Member States, institutional documents, an academic study (Eschbach, Anna, University of Cologne, The Ratification Process in EU Member States, 2015), and information provided by representatives of the EU’s 28 national parliaments in November 2016. NATIONAL PROCEDURES OF MIXED AGREEMENT RATIFICATION Bicameral: National Council, Federal Council AUSTRIA (AT) Regional parliaments: n/a Overview: ­ The National Council in cooperation with the Federal Council must approve the ratification of the majority of mixed agreements.
    [Show full text]
  • Fabian Society
    SOS POLITICAL SCIENCE & PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION M.A POLITICAL SCIENCE II SEM POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY: MODERN POLITICAL THOUGHT, THEORY & CONTEMPORARY IDEOLOGIES UNIT-III Topic Name-fabian socialism WHAT IS MEANT BY FABIAN SOCIALISM? • The Fabian Society is a British socialistorganisation whose purpose is to advance the principles of democratic socialism via gradualist and reformist effort in democracies, rather than by revolutionary overthrow WHO STARTED THE FABIAN SOCIETY? • Its nine founding members were Frank Podmore, Edward R. Pease, William Clarke, Hubert Bland, Percival Chubb, Frederick Keddell, H. H. Champion, Edith Nesbit, and Rosamund Dale Owen. WHO IS THE PROPOUNDER OF FABIAN SOCIALISM? • In the period between the two World Wars, the "Second Generation" Fabians, including the writers R. H. Tawney, G. D. H. Cole and Harold Laski, continued to be a major influence on socialistthought. But the general idea is that each man should have power according to his knowledge and capacity. WHAT IS THE FABIAN POLICY? • The Fabian strategy is a military strategy where pitched battles and frontal assaults are avoided in favor of wearing down an opponent through a war of attrition and indirection. While avoiding decisive battles, the side employing this strategy harasses its enemy through skirmishes to cause attrition, disrupt supply and affect morale. Employment of this strategy implies that the side adopting this strategy believes time is on its side, but it may also be adopted when no feasible alternative strategy can be devised. HISTORY • This
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Disruption?
    CONTENTS Contents EDITORIAL Faster, cleaner, smarter Editor’s letter Nick Molho 10 Sam Robinson 4 Code of ethics? Director’s note Christina Blacklaws 12 Ryan Shorthouse 5 A digital NHS: is it all good news? Letters to the editor 6 Rachel Hutchings 13 Assistive policy for assistive technology Clive Gilbert 14 DIGITAL SOCIETY Mind the digital skills gap Updating Whitehall Helen Milner 15 Daniel Korski CBE 7 Skype session with… Levelling up the tech sector Nir Eyal Matt Warman MP 9 Phoebe Arslanagić-Wakefield 17 Page 25 Damian Collins MP calls for a fundamental overhaul of the way we regulate social media Bright Blue is an independent think tank and pressure group for liberal conservatism. Director: Ryan Shorthouse Chair: Matthew d’Ancona Board of Directors: Rachel Johnson, Alexandra Jezeph, Diane Banks, Phil Clarke & Richard Mabey Editors: Sam Robinson & Phoebe Arslanagić-Wakefield brightblue.org.uk Page 18 The Centre Write interview: Print: Aquatint | aquatint.co.uk Rory Stewart Design: Chris Solomons Jan Baker CONTENTS 3 THE CENTRE WRITE INTERVIEW: DIGITAL WORLD ARTS & BOOKS Rory Stewart OBE 18 Digital borders? The AI Economy: Work, Wealth and Welfare Will Somerville 28 in the Robot Age (Roger Bootle) DIGITAL DEMOCRACY Defying the gravity effect? Diane Banks 35 Detoxifying public life David Henig 30 Inadequate Equilibria (Eliezer Yudkowsky) Catherine Anderson 22 Blockchain to the rescue? Sam Dumitriu 36 Our thoughts are not our own Dr Jane Thomason 31 Bagehot: The Life and Times of the Jim Morrison 23 Greatest Victorian (James Grant) Rethinking
    [Show full text]
  • Whole Day Download the Hansard
    Wednesday Volume 596 3 June 2015 No. 10 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Wednesday 3 June 2015 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2015 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 571 3 JUNE 2015 572 Foreign Minister of Israel says it has the right to build House of Commons anywhere in the west bank it chooses. My question to the Secretary of State is not whether she opposes that Wednesday 3 June 2015 but whether she agrees that European companies have no business trading with illegal settlements east of the green line. The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock Justine Greening: The hon. Gentleman is right that PRAYERS we oppose that illegal building of settlements, and he is shining a light on some of the decisions that companies [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] themselves have to make about whether they will be part of that activity. It is up to them to speak for Speaker’s Statement themselves, but the Government’s position in relation to those settlements is very clear. Mr Speaker: It will be for the convenience of Members to know that the private Members’ Bills ballot book is open in the No Lobby today until the rise of the House, Paul Flynn: May I welcome the right hon. Lady back when the ballot for 2015-16 will close. The ballot draw to her post, which she fulfilled with great distinction in will be held at 9 am tomorrow morning in Committee the previous Parliament? Room 10.
    [Show full text]
  • Scotland and the UK Constitution
    Scotland and the UK Constitution The 1998 devolution acts brought about the most significant change in the constitution of the United Kingdom since at least the passage of the 1972 European Communities Act. Under those statutes devolved legislatures and administrations were created in Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland. The documents below have been selected to give an overview of the constitutional settlement established by the devolution acts and by the Courts. Scotland has been chosen as a case study for this examination, both because the Scottish Parliament has been granted the most extensive range of powers and legislative competences of the three devolved areas, but also because the ongoing debate on Scottish independence means that the powers and competencies of the Scottish Parliament are very much live questions. The devolution of certain legislative and political powers to Scotland was effected by the Scotland Act 1998. That statute, enacted by the Westminster Parliament, creates the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive (now the “Scottish Government”), and establishes the limits on the Parliament’s legislative competence. Schedule 5 of the Act, interpolated by Section 30(1), lists those powers which are reserved to the Westminster Parliament, and delegates all other matters to the devolved organs. Thus, while constitutional matters, foreign affairs, and national defence are explicitly reserved to Westminster, all matters not listed— including the education system, the health service, the legal system, environmental
    [Show full text]
  • THE 422 Mps WHO BACKED the MOTION Conservative 1. Bim
    THE 422 MPs WHO BACKED THE MOTION Conservative 1. Bim Afolami 2. Peter Aldous 3. Edward Argar 4. Victoria Atkins 5. Harriett Baldwin 6. Steve Barclay 7. Henry Bellingham 8. Guto Bebb 9. Richard Benyon 10. Paul Beresford 11. Peter Bottomley 12. Andrew Bowie 13. Karen Bradley 14. Steve Brine 15. James Brokenshire 16. Robert Buckland 17. Alex Burghart 18. Alistair Burt 19. Alun Cairns 20. James Cartlidge 21. Alex Chalk 22. Jo Churchill 23. Greg Clark 24. Colin Clark 25. Ken Clarke 26. James Cleverly 27. Thérèse Coffey 28. Alberto Costa 29. Glyn Davies 30. Jonathan Djanogly 31. Leo Docherty 32. Oliver Dowden 33. David Duguid 34. Alan Duncan 35. Philip Dunne 36. Michael Ellis 37. Tobias Ellwood 38. Mark Field 39. Vicky Ford 40. Kevin Foster 41. Lucy Frazer 42. George Freeman 43. Mike Freer 44. Mark Garnier 45. David Gauke 46. Nick Gibb 47. John Glen 48. Robert Goodwill 49. Michael Gove 50. Luke Graham 51. Richard Graham 52. Bill Grant 53. Helen Grant 54. Damian Green 55. Justine Greening 56. Dominic Grieve 57. Sam Gyimah 58. Kirstene Hair 59. Luke Hall 60. Philip Hammond 61. Stephen Hammond 62. Matt Hancock 63. Richard Harrington 64. Simon Hart 65. Oliver Heald 66. Peter Heaton-Jones 67. Damian Hinds 68. Simon Hoare 69. George Hollingbery 70. Kevin Hollinrake 71. Nigel Huddleston 72. Jeremy Hunt 73. Nick Hurd 74. Alister Jack (Teller) 75. Margot James 76. Sajid Javid 77. Robert Jenrick 78. Jo Johnson 79. Andrew Jones 80. Gillian Keegan 81. Seema Kennedy 82. Stephen Kerr 83. Mark Lancaster 84.
    [Show full text]
  • FDN-274688 Disclosure
    FDN-274688 Disclosure MP Total Adam Afriyie 5 Adam Holloway 4 Adrian Bailey 7 Alan Campbell 3 Alan Duncan 2 Alan Haselhurst 5 Alan Johnson 5 Alan Meale 2 Alan Whitehead 1 Alasdair McDonnell 1 Albert Owen 5 Alberto Costa 7 Alec Shelbrooke 3 Alex Chalk 6 Alex Cunningham 1 Alex Salmond 2 Alison McGovern 2 Alison Thewliss 1 Alistair Burt 6 Alistair Carmichael 1 Alok Sharma 4 Alun Cairns 3 Amanda Solloway 1 Amber Rudd 10 Andrea Jenkyns 9 Andrea Leadsom 3 Andrew Bingham 6 Andrew Bridgen 1 Andrew Griffiths 4 Andrew Gwynne 2 Andrew Jones 1 Andrew Mitchell 9 Andrew Murrison 4 Andrew Percy 4 Andrew Rosindell 4 Andrew Selous 10 Andrew Smith 5 Andrew Stephenson 4 Andrew Turner 3 Andrew Tyrie 8 Andy Burnham 1 Andy McDonald 2 Andy Slaughter 8 FDN-274688 Disclosure Angela Crawley 3 Angela Eagle 3 Angela Rayner 7 Angela Smith 3 Angela Watkinson 1 Angus MacNeil 1 Ann Clwyd 3 Ann Coffey 5 Anna Soubry 1 Anna Turley 6 Anne Main 4 Anne McLaughlin 3 Anne Milton 4 Anne-Marie Morris 1 Anne-Marie Trevelyan 3 Antoinette Sandbach 1 Barry Gardiner 9 Barry Sheerman 3 Ben Bradshaw 6 Ben Gummer 3 Ben Howlett 2 Ben Wallace 8 Bernard Jenkin 45 Bill Wiggin 4 Bob Blackman 3 Bob Stewart 4 Boris Johnson 5 Brandon Lewis 1 Brendan O'Hara 5 Bridget Phillipson 2 Byron Davies 1 Callum McCaig 6 Calum Kerr 3 Carol Monaghan 6 Caroline Ansell 4 Caroline Dinenage 4 Caroline Flint 2 Caroline Johnson 4 Caroline Lucas 7 Caroline Nokes 2 Caroline Spelman 3 Carolyn Harris 3 Cat Smith 4 Catherine McKinnell 1 FDN-274688 Disclosure Catherine West 7 Charles Walker 8 Charlie Elphicke 7 Charlotte
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Staff Register
    REGISTER OF INTERESTS OF MEMBERS’ SECRETARIES AND RESEARCH ASSISTANTS (As at 15 October 2020) INTRODUCTION Purpose and Form of the Register In accordance with Resolutions made by the House of Commons on 17 December 1985 and 28 June 1993, holders of photo-identity passes as Members’ secretaries or research assistants are in essence required to register: ‘Any occupation or employment for which you receive over £410 from the same source in the course of a calendar year, if that occupation or employment is in any way advantaged by the privileged access to Parliament afforded by your pass. Any gift (eg jewellery) or benefit (eg hospitality, services) that you receive, if the gift or benefit in any way relates to or arises from your work in Parliament and its value exceeds £410 in the course of a calendar year.’ In Section 1 of the Register entries are listed alphabetically according to the staff member’s surname. Section 2 contains exactly the same information but entries are instead listed according to the sponsoring Member’s name. Administration and Inspection of the Register The Register is compiled and maintained by the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Anyone whose details are entered on the Register is required to notify that office of any change in their registrable interests within 28 days of such a change arising. An updated edition of the Register is published approximately every 6 weeks when the House is sitting. Changes to the rules governing the Register are determined by the Committee on Standards in the House of Commons, although where such changes are substantial they are put by the Committee to the House for approval before being implemented.
    [Show full text]
  • Redefining Parliamentary Sovereignty: the Example of the Devolution Referenda by Eleonora Harris *
    ISSN: 2036-5438 Redefining Parliamentary Sovereignty: the example of the devolution referenda by Eleonora Harris * Perspectives on Federalism, Vol. 3, issue 3, 2011 Except where otherwise noted content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.5 Italy License E - 94 Abstract The goal of this paper is to draw attention to a critical issue regarding the decline in the traditional doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty in the United Kingdom. Devolution has proven to be a serious threat to Westminster’s supremacy in view of the fact that until now it has evolved with a degree of complexity that the original proponents had scarcely imagined. One of the most peculiar examples of this evolution is the extent to which the referendum has been used to put forward major constitutional changes in this new order. In that regard, this paper, which is divided into two parts, retraces the crucial points of Dicey’s reasoning and then attempts to verify what the devolution process has entailed for the referendum within the United Kingdom’s constitutional framework, up to the latest developments. Key-words Parliamentary sovereignty, United Kingdom, Devolution, Referenda, Dicey Except where otherwise noted content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.5 Italy License E - 95 1.1 The Diceyan Theory of Parliamentary Sovereignty Dicey defines Parliamentary sovereignty as the legal right of the British Parliament, under the Constitution, to make or unmake any law and do so without the possibility of its decisions being overridden or set aside by another body or personI. In order to explain the workings of the Constitution from this particular point of view, the author cites the 1716 Septennial ActII as a perfect example, both in theory and practice, since by enacting this particular law Parliament did something which was perceived, even at the time, as a deviation from the most basic principles of the British Constitution.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 European and External Relations Committee
    European and External Relations Committee Human Rights Inquiry Clan Childlaw About Clan Childlaw Clan Childlaw offers a unique legal advocacy service to children and young people. We are lawyers delivering free legal advice and representation to children and young people, who would otherwise have found it very difficult or impossible to access the legal help that they require. We help Children & Young People up to the age of 18, or 21 if they have been Looked After Children. We deliver specialist training in child law including the following subjects: Children’s Rights in Scots Law; Children’s Hearings; Child Protection and the Law; Looked After Children; Sexual Offences: Children & Young People; Giving Evidence in Court; and A Journey through Care – the legal perspective. We contribute to policy development in relation to the realisation of rights for children and young people across Scotland through our evidence based Policy Development Unit. With the insight gained from our direct legal representation of children and young people, we can (a) offer a unique perspective and (b) use our legal knowledge, skills and expertise to advance policy and its implementation. (1) What is your general view on the UK Government’s proposal to introduce a British Bill of Rights to replace the Human Rights Act 1998? Do you think changes need to be made to the current human rights regime in the UK? No. From a children’s rights point of view protection under ECHR as implemented by the Human Rights Act 1998 by the United Kingdom Parliament and as interpreted by the UK courts with reference to decisions of the European Court of Human Rights is a far clearer application of accepted Human Rights.
    [Show full text]