DOCSLIB.ORG

Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Friday Volume 497 16 October 2009 No. 125 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Friday 16 October 2009 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2009 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ Enquiries to the Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] 551 16 OCTOBER 2009 552 Solicitor-General to make a statement about the Yvonne House of Commons Fletcher case? It emerged last night that, two years ago, a senior lawyer carried out an independent review of Friday 16 October 2009 the case for the Crown Prosecution Service in which he said that the two Libyans involved could be charged for conspiracy to cause death. Neither had diplomatic The House met at half-past Nine o’clock immunity; they escaped from the Libyan embassy. The report made it clear that both those men played an instrumental role in the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher. PRAYERS Last night, as I said, it emerged that the Crown Prosecution Service had confirmed that, two years on, The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means took the police had still not provided it with the final case file the Chair as Deputy Speaker (Standing Order No. 3). containing the admissible evidence. Surely the Home Secretary should make a statement explaining why the NEW WRIT Metropolitan police are sitting on that vital evidence, Ordered, and to put our minds at rest by assuring us that Britain’s That the Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the trade interests are not being put before the interests of Crown, to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to bringing criminals to justice. I seek your guidance, serve in this present Parliament for the Borough Constituency of Mr. Deputy Speaker. Glasgow, North-East in the room of Michael John Martin, who since his election for the said Borough Constituency has accepted Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have not so far been given the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty’s Manor of notice that any Minister is proposing to come to the Northstead in the County of York.—(Mr. Nicholas Brown.) House to make a statement, but, again, Ministers will have heard the points made by the hon. Gentleman and 9.34 am will, I am sure, take note of them. Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon) (Lab): I beg to move, Damages (Asbestos-Related Conditions) That the House sit in private. Bill Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163). Consideration of Bill, not amended in the Public Bill A Division was called. Committee Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Division off. Clause 2 Question disagreed to. PLEURAL THICKENING AND ASBESTOSIS Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): On a 9.40 am point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before we get to Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): I beg to the Bill, I would like to raise with you an issue arising move amendment 10, page 1, line 15, leave out from what the Leader of the House said at column 449 yesterday in answer to a question put by my right hon. ‘, is not causing or is not likely to cause’ and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North and insert Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). The Leader of the House said: ‘and is not causing but is likely to cause’. “We obviously have to judge things by the rules and standards Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient that obtained at the time; doing anything else would be arbitrary.”— to discuss the following: amendment 11, page 1, line 21, leave [Official Report, 15 October 2009; Vol. 497, c. 449.] out In today’s edition of The Independent and on the BBC ‘, is causing or is likely to cause’ there are reports that Mr. Speaker is to say something and insert ‘or is causing’. different on “The Week at Westminster” tomorrow. I Amendment 12, page 1, line 22, at end insert wondered whether you could ensure that Mr. Speaker shares with us on Monday his thoughts about the Legg ‘if it is likely to cause such impairment’. report so that we can discuss the matter in the House Amendment 13, in clause 3, page 2, line 10, leave out rather than have it aired only on the media. As I made ‘, is not causing or is not likely to cause’ clear in a point of order in June, we in the House are and insert insistent that we should hold Ministers of the Crown to ‘and is not causing but is likely to cause’. account for their statements, and on something as sensitive as the Legg report, I believe that Mr. Speaker would Mr. Chope: Amendment 10 would amend the Bill’s wish to have questions put to him to answer. definition of the personal injury which would constitute actionable damage. Amendments 11, 12 and 13 would Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter that I can make similar changes to other parts of the Bill to ensure deal with this morning. No doubt all the parties concerned consistency. with these matters will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s I hope that I will not be thought to be critical of the points and take them into consideration when they Bill but, rather, will be considered to be a critical friend decide on their courses of action. of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). The subject of pleural plaques and whether they should be Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): regarded as a condition amounting to an actionable On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would like personal injury is highly emotionally charged. As a your advice and guidance on whether you have received former member of the Health and Safety Commission, a request from the Home Secretary or, possibly, the I am well aware of the health and safety aspects of 553 Damages (Asbestos-Related 16 OCTOBER 2009 Damages (Asbestos-Related 554 Conditions) Bill Conditions) Bill [Mr. Chope] my reasons for trying to draw out a response from the Minister. However, I share my hon. Friend’s scepticism exposure to asbestos, and as a former Member for and criticism of the extraordinary way in which the Southampton, Itchen—a constituency containing a Government have been behaving. disproportionately large number of people who had I did a bit of research overnight, as one does, and worked in the ship repair industry and related industries—I noticed that when consultation was announced last am well aware of the hardship caused to the families of year, no less a person than the Government Chief those who have died or are suffering as a result of Whip—from whom we have already heard once today— asbestos-related disease. I am therefore very sympathetic expressed the view on his website, on behalf of his to the cause espoused by the hon. Member for Hendon. constituents, that it was very good news and that progress However, as a lawyer by training and background, I am would be made as a result. I hope that he will return to also anxious that we should retain consistency in the the Chamber during the debate, and will let us know his application of legal principles, even when dealing with present view of the way in which the Government have highly charged and emotional subject matter. Everyone behaved since then. is familiar with the dictum that hard cases make bad The amendments are designed to try to find a middle law. Indeed, I believe that some of us in the House are way, and above all to provoke a response from the currently experiencing the application of that dictum in Government. As currently drafted, clause 2(1) would other contexts. enable compensation to be paid even when the condition When clause 2 was discussed in Committee, the hon. “has not caused, is not causing or is not likely to cause impairment Member for Cambridge (David Howarth)—I am sorry of a person’s physical condition”. that he is not present today—argued that Even when there is no likelihood of future physical “anyone who has been exposed to asbestos is in a similar position impairment, damages would be payable. How can such to someone with pleural plaques, asymptomatic pleural thickening or asymptomatic asbestosis, in that they are at risk of developing a proposition be consistent with the law of tort? I do the serious diseases in the future.”––[Official Report, Damages not think that it can be, and, indeed, that is what the (Asbestos-Related Conditions) Public Bill Committee, 1 July 2009; unanimous ruling of the House of Lords amounted to. c. 12.] In February, during a debate in Westminster Hall— In responding to his point, the Minister led us to believe another signpost on the route march to what people that she was rather sympathetic to it and would wish to hoped would be a declaration of the Government’s return to the issue on Report. It was with some amazement views on the matter—the hon. Member for Wansbeck that I noted that the amendment paper contained no (Mr. Murphy) said: Government amendments, given that on two occasions “People who have been diagnosed with pleural plaques can in Committee the Minister had indicated that she would think of little else, and all that they can consider is that their next have to consider the issues and whether the Government step could be a fatal one, so it is vital that compensation is might wish to table amendments.
Recommended publications
  • How to Read the Bill History Page Hb 2480

    How to Read the Bill History Page Hb 2480

    HOW TO READ THE BILL HISTORY PAGE This tutorial will show you how to read the bill information and history page for a bill. This page and the next show the bill history for HB 2480 from the 2007-08 legislative session as it appears on the webpage. Beginning on page 3 this bill history is shown with a detailed explanation of what each line means. HB 2480 - 2007-08 (What is this?) Concerning public transportation fares. Sponsors: Clibborn, McIntire, Simpson Companion Bill: SB 6353 Go to documents. Go to videos. Bill History 2008 REGULAR SESSION Dec 21 Prefiled for introduction. Jan 14 First reading, referred to Transportation. (View Original Bill) Jan 17 Public hearing in the House Committee on Transportation at 3:30 PM. Jan 29 Executive action taken in the House Committee on Transportation at 3:30 PM. TR - Executive action taken by committee. TR - Majority; 1st substitute bill be substituted, do pass. (View 1st Substitute) Minority; do not pass. Feb 1 Passed to Rules Committee for second reading. Feb 12 Made eligible to be placed on second reading. Feb 13 Placed on second reading. Feb 14 1st substitute bill substituted (TR 08). (View 1st Substitute) Floor amendment(s) adopted. Rules suspended. Placed on Third Reading. Third reading, passed; yeas, 84; nays, 10; absent, 0; excused, 4. (View Roll Calls) (View 1st Engrossed) IN THE SENATE Feb 16 First reading, referred to Transportation. Feb 20 Public hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation at 1:30 PM. Feb 26 Executive action taken in the Senate Committee on Transportation at 3:30 PM.
  • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. March 10

    CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. March 10

    1776 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. MARcH 10, H. Owen and ofW. W. Welch-severally to the Committee on Wax braces some six or seven hundred miles of road under one control, Claims. and, talring it in connection with its control of the Georgia road, By Mr. A.. HERR SMITH: The petition of soldiers and sailors of more than that. That is all worked in connection with the expor­ the late war for an increase of pension to all pensioners who lost an tation of productions at Savannah. The Louisville and Nashville arm and leg while in the line of duty-to the Committee on Invalid system, which is very prominent and controls probably some two Pensions. thousand miles of road, or more, works in harmony with the Central. By Mr. STONE: The petition of Patrick McDonald, to be placed That combination of roads naturally looks to Savannah as an outlet on the retired list-to the Committee on Military Affairs. for a great deal of the produce that is shipped over its lines. There By Mr. TALBOTT: Papers relating to the claim of Alexander M. is then the line by way of'the Georgia and Cent.ral, through Atlanta Templeton-to the Committee on War Claims. over the Stat.e Road~ as it is called, by the Nashville, Chattanoo~a By Mr. URNER: Papers relating to the claim of Robertson Topp antl Saint Louis, al o connecting with the Louisville and Nashviue and William L. Vance-to the same committee. Road to the western cities. There are the same connections up to By Mr.
  • Bills of Attainder

    Bills of Attainder

    University at Buffalo School of Law Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship Winter 2016 Bills of Attainder Matthew Steilen University at Buffalo School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles Part of the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Matthew Steilen, Bills of Attainder, 53 Hous. L. Rev. 767 (2016). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles/123 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLE BILLS OF ATTAINDER Matthew Steilen* ABSTRACT What are bills of attainder? The traditional view is that bills of attainder are legislation that punishes an individual without judicial process. The Bill of Attainder Clause in Article I, Section 9 prohibits the Congress from passing such bills. But what about the President? The traditional view would seem to rule out application of the Clause to the President (acting without Congress) and to executive agencies, since neither passes bills. This Article aims to bring historical evidence to bear on the question of the scope of the Bill of Attainder Clause. The argument of the Article is that bills of attainder are best understood as a summary form of legal process, rather than a legislative act. This argument is based on a detailed historical reconstruction of English and early American practices, beginning with a study of the medieval Parliament rolls, year books, and other late medieval English texts, and early modern parliamentary diaries and journals covering the attainders of Elizabeth Barton under Henry VIII and Thomas Wentworth, earl of Strafford, under Charles I.
  • Tracing the History of the Bill of Rights

    Tracing the History of the Bill of Rights

    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 2019 From Appendix to Heart: Tracing the History of the Bill of Rights Lael Weinberger Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Weinberger, Lael, "From Appendix to Heart: Tracing the History of the Bill of Rights" (2019). Constitutional Commentary. 1202. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/1202 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Constitutional Commentary collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 07 WEINBERGER_FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 12/23/2019 10:24 AM FROM APPENDIX TO HEART: TRACING THE HISTORY OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS THE HEART OF THE CONSTITUTION: HOW THE BILL OF RIGHTS BECAME THE BILL OF RIGHTS. Gerard N. Magliocca.1 New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. Pp. xii + 235. $29.95 (Hardcover). Lael Weinberger2 I. INTRODUCTION: THE THINGS WE TAKE FOR GRANTED The upper level of the National Archives museum features three documents, grandly presented in a marble rotunda: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. When the hall is open for visitors, the documents are displayed behind bulletproof glass and constantly attended by guards; at night, the documents are stored still more securely in a bomb-proof vault.3 “In this Rotunda are the most cherished material possessions of a great and good nation,” President George W. Bush said in 2003 at an event reopening the hall after a major renovation.4 Every branch of government was represented at the event, offering encomiums to the documents enshrined in the hall.
  • Insert Catchy Title

    Insert Catchy Title

    Addressing Tomorrow’s Terrorists Andrew Peterson* American anti-terrorism laws are insufficient to address the next wave of global terrorism. When President Bush declared that the United States had begun a “war on terror,”1 the entire government began to reorient itself to tackle America’s newest “generational challenge.”2 The Department of Justice (DOJ) joined this massive effort, declaring in a new Strategic Plan that its focus was not simply to prosecute terrorists for crimes, but to “[p]revent, disrupt, and defeat terrorist operations before they occur.”3 Despite its constant talk of reorientation, however, DOJ has been limited in its ability to creatively address the war on terror for one simple reason: many of the relevant federal criminal statutes are poorly constructed. Prior to September 1994, there were no federal criminal prohibitions that specifically punished material support for terrorism. Prosecutors had to rely instead on generic federal crimes, such as murder and money laundering, or on a variety of statutes condemning specific acts of terrorism, such as air piracy or hostage taking. After the 1993 terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center, this situation rapidly changed. Legislators hastily drafted a number of statutes and amendments that sought to address the domestic terrorist threat. Acting in response to public demand for quick, decisive action, Congress generally maximized the scope of anti-terror prohibitions while overriding any legal obstacles to quick prosecution that were presented by the judiciary. Although it is difficult to fault Congress for acting decisively, the bedrock of counterterrorism enforcement laid down by these statutes is deeply flawed.
  • Calendar No. 80

    Calendar No. 80

    Calendar No. 80 113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! 1st Session SENATE 113–40 BORDER SECURITY, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AND IMMIGRATION MODERNIZATION ACT JUNE 7, 2013.—Ordered to be printed Mr. LEAHY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following R E P O R T together with ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS [To accompany S. 744] The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill (S. 744), to provide for comprehensive immigration reform, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon, with an amendment, and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass. CONTENTS Page I. Background and Purpose of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act ........................................................ 1 II. History of the Bill and Committee Consideration ....................................... 22 III. Section-by-Section Summary of the Bill ...................................................... 75 IV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ................................................ 161 V. Regulatory Impact Evaluation ...................................................................... 161 VI. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 161 VII. Additional and Minority Views ..................................................................... 163 VIII. Changes to Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................... 186 I. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE BORDER SECURITY, ECONOMIC
  • Review of the Birth of the Bill of Rights by Robert Allen Rutland

    Review of the Birth of the Bill of Rights by Robert Allen Rutland

    19561 BOOK REVIEWS The Birth of the Bill of Rights. By Robert Allen Rutland. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1955. Pp. 243. $5.00. The federal Bill of Rights is one of the most cherished documents in our national hagiography. Its clauses have been invoked by contending parties in every crisis of our history. Every sort of minority interest has sought se- curity in its generous phrases. Its meaning has long been the subject of in- tense controversy among lawyers and judges. The judicial gloss upon its words and phrases has attained enormous proportions. Yet in spite of all this, surprisingly little scholarly work has been done on the history of the Bill of Rights.1 The interest of American historians in constitutional history, once so pronounced, seems to have spent itself. Such newer pastures as those of in- tellectual and business history appear to be greener. It is a long time since our historians have produced a significant new work in the field of constitu- tional history. Political scientists and legal scholars are gradually moving in to fill the vacuum.2 We have had, of course, a number of historical studies of particular aspects of civil liberties,3 but we have never had a thorough, criti- cal, substantial, scholarly study of the origins of the American Bill of Rights. In fact, Rutland's treatise, The Birth of the Bill of Rights, is, to my knowl- edge, the first book-length study by a historical scholar ever written on the subject. While Rutland should be given credit for making the attempt, his book does not by any means fill this gap in historical scholarship.
  • Cromwelliana

    Cromwelliana

    CROMWELLIANA Published by The Cromwell Association, a registered charity, this Cromwelliana annual journal of Civil War and Cromwellian studies contains articles, book reviews, a bibliography and other comments, contributions and III Series papers. Details of availability and prices of both this edition and previous editions of Cromwelliana are available on our website: The Journal of www.olivercromwell.org. The 2018 Cromwelliana Cromwell Association The Cr The omwell Association omwell No 1 ‘promoting our understanding of the 17th century’ 2018 The Cromwell Association The Cromwell Museum 01480 708008 Grammar School Walk President: Professor PETER GAUNT, PhD, FRHistS Huntingdon www.cromwellmuseum.org PE29 3LF Vice Presidents: PAT BARNES Rt Hon FRANK DOBSON, PC Rt Hon STEPHEN DORRELL, PC The Cromwell Museum is in the former Huntingdon Grammar School Dr PATRICK LITTLE, PhD, FRHistS where Cromwell received his early education. The Cromwell Trust and Professor JOHN MORRILL, DPhil, FBA, FRHistS Museum are dedicated to preserving and communicating the assets, legacy Rt Hon the LORD NASEBY, PC and times of Oliver Cromwell. In addition to the permanent collection the Dr STEPHEN K. ROBERTS, PhD, FSA, FRHistS museum has a programme of changing temporary exhibitions and activities. Professor BLAIR WORDEN, FBA Opening times Chairman: JOHN GOLDSMITH Honorary Secretary: JOHN NEWLAND April – October Honorary Treasurer: GEOFFREY BUSH Membership Officer PAUL ROBBINS 11.00am – 3.30pm, Tuesday – Sunday The Cromwell Association was formed in 1937 and is a registered charity (reg no. November – March 1132954). The purpose of the Association is to advance the education of the public 1.30pm – 3.30pm, Tuesday – Sunday (11.00am – 3.30pm Saturday) in both the life and legacy of Oliver Cromwell (1599–1658), politician, soldier and statesman, and the wider history of the seventeenth century.
  • A State of Play: British Politics on Screen, Stage and Page, from Anthony Trollope To

    A State of Play: British Politics on Screen, Stage and Page, from Anthony Trollope To

    Fielding, Steven. "Introduction." A State of Play: British Politics on Screen, Stage and Page, from Anthony Trollope to . : Bloomsbury Academic, 2014. 1–26. Bloomsbury Collections. Web. 30 Sep. 2021. <http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781472545015.0005>. Downloaded from Bloomsbury Collections, www.bloomsburycollections.com, 30 September 2021, 22:10 UTC. Copyright © Steven Fielding 2014. You may share this work for non-commercial purposes only, provided you give attribution to the copyright holder and the publisher, and provide a link to the Creative Commons licence. Introduction Depicting Democracy Anybody who wants to understand what the British think about their democracy – that is the elections, parties, leaders and legislatures that give it shape – as well as why they think it, should take fiction seriously.1 This is because plays, novels and films, along with television dramas and comedies, have long articu- lated Britons’ hopes and (more often and increasingly) fears about the exercise of political power. Looked at in the right way, these can tell us much about Britain’s political culture. Building on the insight that elections are but ‘the final ceremony of a long process’, A State of Play argues that culture is an integral part of the formal political process.2 From Benjamin Disraeli’s ‘One Nation’ to House of Cards’ ‘You might very well think that; I couldn’t possibly comment’ and The Thick of It’s ‘omnishambles’, concepts, characters and phrases originating in fiction have not only fashioned Westminster politicians’ discourse but also, and more insidiously, helped mould how those millions beyond the Commons Chamber regard – accurately or not – the reality of democracy.
  • Calendar No. 148

    Calendar No. 148

    Calendar No. 148 110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! 1st Session SENATE 110–66 WAR PROFITEERING PREVENTION ACT OF 2007 Mr. LEAHY, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted the following R E P O R T together with ADDITIONAL VIEWS [To accompany S. 119] [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill (S. 119) to prohibit profiteering and fraud relating to military ac- tion, relief, and reconstruction efforts, and for other purposes, re- ports favorably thereon with amendments, and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass. CONTENTS Page I. Purpose of the War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007 ........................... 1 II. History of the Bill and Committee Consideration ....................................... 4 III. Section-by-Section Summary of the Bill ...................................................... 5 IV. Cost Estimate ................................................................................................. 6 V. Regulatory Impact Evaluation ...................................................................... 7 VI. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 7 VII. Additional Views of Senator Sessions .......................................................... 7 VIII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill as Reported ............................ 10 I. PURPOSE OF THE WAR PROFITEERING PREVENTION ACT OF 2007 Chairman Patrick Leahy introduced the War Profiteering Pre- vention Act
  • Review of Past ACA Payments

    Review of Past ACA Payments

    House of Commons Members Estimate Committee Review of past ACA payments First Report of Session 2009–10 Report, together with formal minutes Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 2 February 2010 HC 348 Published on 4 February 2010 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £23.00 Members Estimate Committee The Members Estimate Committee has the same Members as the House of Commons Commission: Rt Hon John Bercow MP, Speaker Sir Stuart Bell MP Rt Hon Harriet Harman MP, Leader of the House Nick Harvey MP Rt Hon David Maclean MP Rt Hon Sir George Young MP, Shadow Leader of the House The Committee is appointed under Standing Order No 152D (House of Commons Members Estimate Committee): 152D.—(1) There shall be a committee of this House, called the House of Commons Members Estimate Committee. (2) The members of the committee shall be those Members who are at any time members of the House of Commons Commission pursuant to section 1 of the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978; the Speaker shall be chairman of committee; and three shall be the quorum of the committee. (3) The functions of the committee shall be— (a) to codify and keep under review the provisions of the resolutions of this House and the Guide to Members’ Allowances known as the Green Book relating to expenditure charged to the Estimate for House of Commons: Members; (b) to modify those provisions from time to time as the committee may think necessary or desirable in the interests of clarity, consistency, accountability and effective administration, and conformity with current circumstances; (c) to provide advice, when requested by the Speaker, on the application of those provisions in individual cases; (d) to carry out the responsibilities conferred on the Speaker by the resolution of the House of 5th July 2001 relating to Members’ Allowances, Insurance, &c.; (e) to consider appeals against determinations made by the Committee on Members’ Allowances under paragraph (1)(d) of Standing Order No.
  • Consultation, Commissions and Context: a Comparative Study of the Law Commission and the Australian Law Reform Commission

    Consultation, Commissions and Context: a Comparative Study of the Law Commission and the Australian Law Reform Commission

    QUT Digital Repository: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/ White, Benjamin P. (2005) Consultation, commissions and context : a comparative study of the Law Commission and the Australian Law Reform Commission. PhD thesis, University of Oxford. © Copyright 2005 [please consult the author] CONSULTATION, COMMISSIONS AND CONTEXT: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE LAW COMMISSION AND THE AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION BEN WHITE TITLE: CONSULTATION, COMMISSIONS AND CONTEXT: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE LAW COMMISSION AND THE AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION NAME: BEN WHITE COLLEGE: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DEGREE: DPHIL IN LAW SUBMITTED: HILARY 2004 ABSTRACT This thesis compares the consultation conducted by the Law Commission (‘LC’) and the Australian Law Reform Commission (‘ALRC’). Its first goal is to describe the process in detail, which begins with the purposes of consultation. Next, the process of consultation is described with a discussion of each of the techniques employed by the Commissions. Although there is much overlap in how the LC and the ALRC consult, they do approach the exercise differently and these differences are discussed. The description of the Commissions’ consultation concludes by examining its impact. A second goal is to compare the two Commissions’ approach to consultation and this comparison is aided by the development of two models: the English Commission’s expert model of consultation and the Australian Commission’s more inclusive model. Underpinning the comparison between the two Commissions and these different models is the intended target of the consultation exercise. It is argued that the LC’s decisions are motivated by the goal of securing expertise, more than is the case at the ALRC.