DOCSLIB.ORG

Bc Disease News a Weekly Disease Update

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bc Disease News a Weekly Disease Update 13 February 2015 Edition 83 BC DISEASE NEWS A WEEKLY DISEASE UPDATE CONTENTS PAGE 2 Welcome Welcome PAGE 3 Welcome to this week’s edition of BC Disease News. In the last week an insurer has said most NIHL claims fail owing to claimant opportunism and the Most industrial deafness Coventry costs case has been heard in the Supreme Court. claims fail due to opportunism, says insurer This week we present a feature examining the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court that the Welsh Assembly lacks competence to enact the Mesothelioma Act payments Recovery of Medical Costs for Asbestos Diseases (Wales) Bill. increased Any comments or feedback can be sent to Boris Cetnik or Charlotte Owen. PAGE 4 As always, warmest regards to all. Coventry Costs Case heard in the Supreme Court Quindell negotiations on- going Slater and Gordon hoovers up more firms Neuberger laments absence of fast-track fixed fees PAGE 5 Feature: Supreme Court rules Welsh Assembly lacks competence to enact asbestos bill PAGE | 2 Most industrial NIHL has been described as the new Tracing Office, is doing an increasingly whiplash. good job at tracing insurance policies deafness claims fail due which means sufferers can more easily Mr Harvey said: ‘There is an accepted pursue compensators for a remedy…I am to opportunism, says standard for industrial deafness hearing determined that this success is tests that requires testing to be undertaken maintained, reinforced by regulation from insurer in sound-proofed rooms with specialist the Financial Conduct Authority’. equipment. However, we are seeing The insurer Aviva has said that some 85% evidence of tests being done poorly and Mr Harper added that the Government had of claims made to it for noise-induced conducted in, for example, community also agreed to introduce some ‘additional hearing loss (NIHL) fail to demonstrate any halls and shopping centres. In some safeguards’ to ensure the scheme link to workplace noise-induced hearing cases, no hearing tests are conducted at ‘remains a scheme of last resort’, following loss.1 all.’ discussions with the insurance industry. Aviva contends that many NIHL cases are Harvey added: ‘We also call on the John Spencer, president of the Association brought by ‘opportunistic lawyers’ looking recently announced Insurance Fraud Task of Personal Injury Lawyers, said for new revenue. Force to recommend a programme of mesothelioma victims needed full reform which will make these claims compensation and ‘should never have Speaking about the impact of NIHL claims, simpler to process and discourage lawyers been penalised’ simply because their the insurer said it received 11,000 claims from submitting weak cases they know are former insurer could not be traced. He in 2014, a four-fold increase since 2009. likely to fail’. said: ‘The Government should be Since 2012 it says it has paid out more applauded for acting quickly to exploit the than £1.2 million to claimants, and £5.5m Mesothelioma Act lower than expected uptake of the to their lawyers. scheme, but it is still highly regrettable payments increased than 100% compensation was not Ian Harvey, senior claims manager at available to all mesothelioma sufferers Aviva, said: ‘Aviva recognises the from the inception of the scheme’. The Government has announced that it is problems caused by exposure to to increase tariff payments under the damaging levels of noise at work and we Mesothelioma Act 2014 to 100% of the Adrian Budgen, head of the asbestos team do all we can to settle genuine claims at Irwin Mitchell, said that many victims average damages victims would have promptly. People who have been exposed would still in any event receive ‘far less’ achieved in the courts, up from 80%.2 to loud noise throughout their career and than if they had successfully pursued a demonstrate noise induced hearing loss The minister for disabled people, Mark compensation claim through the courts. should be compensated. However, it Harper, said in a written statement to the ‘These victims of asbestos exposure are cannot be right that for every £1 Aviva House of Commons that regulations would suffering for a horrible and aggressive pays to genuine hearing loss sufferers, the terminal cancer through no fault of their be introduced to increase the payments to claimant lawyers receive £5’. own and should not be punished once 100% from 10 February 2015. He again simply because an insurance policy explained that the payment process would He explained: ‘Too many industrial take effect when the regulations become cannot be traced’, he said. ‘We repeatedly deafness cases are submitted by law next month. It will be recalled that the called for the Government to pay out 100% opportunistic personal injury lawyers with of the individual’s entitlement and feel Mesothelioma Act 2014 compensates the support of claims management strongly that at very least the increase in those sufferers of mesothelioma who have companies that actively encourage people the average payment should be backdated been unable to trace an employers’ liability to make claims. They are not serving the to the beginning of the scheme’. insurer. best interests of claimants by submitting claims using poor-quality hearing tests’. Explaining the reason for the increase, Andrew Morgan of Fieldfisher said the increase will ‘reduce the injustices and Harper said: ‘The number of claimants has Aviva set out a raft of reforms that it said ease the financial plight suffered by proven to be below the level anticipated. I would improve the claims process, eligible mesothelioma sufferers and their made it clear through the passage of the including fixed legal fees, expanding the Mesothelioma Act that I planned to monitor families’. However, he said there was still claims portal to include multi-defendant the scheme to gauge the extent that the some distance to go: ‘The scheme does claims and establishing a panel of not cover mesothelioma sufferers who assumption made when it was being set independent hearing loss experts ‘to were exposed outside work, nor does it up has been borne out in practice, and reduce spurious and fraudulent claims’. It cover asbestos-related lung cancers or would also consider the impact on the is interesting to note that the introduction other fatal industrial diseases. We call on insurance companies who pay for it. of these reforms would closely align the the Government to extend the scheme to treatment of NIHL claims with whiplash ‘It is already clear that the insurance cover everyone who is suffering terminal claims. This is unsurprising given that industry, through its Employer Liability illness as a result of someone else’s P AGE | 3 negligence’. Gordon’s headcount by approximately 200, Quindell negotiations with the addition of five offices. Both firms Coventry Costs Case on-going will be dual branded for the next year. heard in the Supreme In 2015, Slater and Gordon said is it Quindell has sought to reassure investors looking to the UK to provide 45% of the that sale talks with claimant leviathan Court company’s revenue – about £115 million – Slater and Gordon have not decayed.4 with a profit margin of 23-24%. The firm The highly awaited rehearing of Coventry v revealed that for the first part of the year, its In a statement to the stock exchange, Lawrence has taken place in the Supreme UK operation has contributed almost £60 Quindell said: ‘Contrary to speculation, Court this week.3 million turnover and £14 million in profit. the exclusivity arrangements with Slater and Gordon Ltd in respect of the possible It will be recalled that the case is set to Speaking about the acquisitions, managing disposal of an operating division of the determine whether the pre-Jackson regime director Andrew Grech said: ‘In the UK we group continue and discussions are of recoverable success fees and after the are making substantial progress towards ongoing’. event (ATE) insurance premiums under our objective of becoming a leading the Access to Justice Act 1999 infringes consumer law firm. We have now secured However, while it affirmed ongoing talks, article 6 and article 1 of Protocol 1 of the a strong direct-to-consumer base, and see the firm cautioned that there was still no European Convention on Human Rights substantial capacity for growth. In addition guarantee that any agreement would be (ECHR). to this, we are also seeing opportunities reached. It said: ‘There can be no open up in other channel of new business certainty that these discussions will lead The case was heard for two-and-a-half generation which are under assessment’. to an offer for, or the disposal of, an days this week, on Monday, Tuesday and operating division of the group’. Thursday, by a panel of seven Justices: The statement also confirmed ongoing talks president of the Supreme Court Lord with Quindell. Neuberger, deputy president of the Slater and Gordon Supreme Court Lady Hale, Master of the Rolls Lord Dyson, former Master of the hoovers up more firms Neuberger laments Rolls Lord Clarke, and Lords Mance, absence of fast-track Sumption and Carnwath. The claimant personal injury giant that is Slater and Gordon has hoovered up fixed fees Eight interveners were given permission to another two firms as it continues its 5 intervene in the case: the Secretary of strategy of acquisition. The president of the Supreme Court has State for Justice, the Asbestos Victims said that it is ‘more than disappointing’ that Support Groups Forum UK, the General The firm has announced that it is over four years after the Government Council of the Bar, the Law Society, the imminently to take over Walker Smith backed the Jackson reforms ‘we still do not Association of Business Recovery Way and Leo Abse and Cohen.
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]
  • JUDGMENT AXA General Insurance Limited and Others (Appellants)
    Michaelmas Term [2011] UKSC 46 On appeal from: [2011] CSIH 31 JUDGMENT AXA General Insurance Limited and others (Appellants) v The Lord Advocate and others (Respondents) (Scotland) before Lord Hope, Deputy President Lord Brown Lord Mance Lord Kerr Lord Clarke Lord Dyson Lord Reed JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 12 October 2011 Heard on 13, 14 and 15 June 2011 Appellant 1st Respondent Richard Keen QC Alan Dewar QC Jane Munro James Mure QC (Instructed by Brodies (Instructed by Scottish LLP) Government Legal Directorate Litigation Division) 2nd Respondent 3rd-10th Respondents Ruth Crawford QC Aidan O’Neill QC John MacGregor Chris Pirie (Instructed by Office of (Instructed by Thompsons the Solicitor to the Solicitors Glasgow Advocate General for Scotland) Scotland Intervener (First Minister Intervener (Attorney of Wales) General for Northern Ireland) Theodore Huckle QC John F Larkin QC Clive Lewis QC Donal Sayers BL (Instructed by Welsh (Instructed by Solicitors Assembly Government for the Attorney General Legal Services for Northern Ireland) Department, Cardiff) Intervener (Friends of the Intervener (Department of Earth Scotland Ltd) Finance and Personnel (Northern Ireland)) Simon Collins Paul Maguire QC Paul McLaughlin BL (Instructed by Patrick (Instructed by Campbell & Co Solicitors) Departmental Solicitor’s Office) LORD HOPE 1. The appellants are insurance companies, whose business includes the writing of employers’ liability insurance policies. They undertake to indemnify the employer in respect of any liability incurred by it for harm or injury arising out of the employer’s negligence. They have brought these proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of an Act of the Scottish Parliament which was passed on 11 March 2009, received the Royal Assent on 17 April 2009 and came into force on 17 June 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT - AXA V LORD ADVOCATE
    WRITTEN STATEMENT BY THE WELSH GOVERNMENT TITLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT - AXA v LORD ADVOCATE DATE 12 OCTOBER 2011 BY THEODORE HUCKLE Q.C., COUNSEL GENERAL The Supreme Court has today handed down its judgment in the case of AXA General Insurance Limited and others (Appellants) v The Lord Advocate and others (Respondents) (Scotland)1. This case involves a legal challenge to the Damages (Asbestos-related) Conditions (Scotland) Act 2009; an Act of the Scottish Parliament. That Act provides that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis constitute, and are to be treated as always having constituted, actionable harm for the purposes of an action for damages for personal injury. The effect of the Act, in Scotland, is to reverse the judgment of the House of Lords (sitting judicially) in the case of Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co Ltd2 in which it held that such effects were not actionable harm and could not therefore be the subject of a claim for damages for personal injuries. There were a number of issues considered by the Supreme Court but of particular interest for the Welsh devolution settlement was the fact that the validity of the Scottish Act was questioned on common law grounds: it was argued by the appellants (insurance companies) that Acts of the Scottish Parliament are open to judicial review as an unreasonable, irrational and or arbitrary exercise of the legislative authority conferred by the Scotland Act 1998 on the Scottish Parliament. If that contention was held to be right, it would almost inevitably follow that Acts of the National Assembly for Wales would similarly be open to judicial review on these grounds and this is fundamental to the quality of the devolution settlement.
    [Show full text]
  • Edging the Estuary
    the welsh + Richard Wyn Jones Devolution’s unfinished business John Osmond Theodore Huckle and a Welsh jurisdiction Emrys Roberts Elystan Morgan’s tryst with Wales John Borkowski and Angus Walker Wales should join with West on airport Cynog Dafis Sacred landscape and sustainable development Zoë Harcombe The obesity epidemic Katie Harris Human trafficking on our streets Peter Jones Why a barrage is a step too far Gareth Rees Edging Cultural apartheid on the airwaves Karen Owen When Caernarfon was the print the estuary capital of Wales Trevor Fishlock A hole in our national trouser Nigel Jenkins In the footsteps of Y Gododdin www.iwa.org.uk | Spring 2013 | No. 49 | £8.99 The Institute of Welsh Affairs gratefully acknowledges funding support from the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation and the Waterloo Foundation. The following organisations are corporate members: Public Sector Private Sector Voluntary Sector • Aberystwyth University • ABACA Limited • Aberdare & District Chamber • ACAS Wales • Arden Kitt Associates Ltd of Trade & Commerce • Bangor University • Association of Chartered Certified • Alcohol Concern Cymru • BBC Cymru Wales Accountants (ACCA) • Business in the Community • Cardiff & Vale College / Coleg Caerdydd a’r Fro • Beaufort Research • Cardiff University (CAIRD) • Cardiff School of Management • BT • Cartrefi Cymru • Cardiff University • Cassidian UK Ltd • Cartrefi Cymunedol Community • Cardiff University Library • Castell Howell Foods Housing Cymru • Centre for Regeneration Excellence Wales •
    [Show full text]
  • Welsh Government Consultation on a Separate Legal Jurisdiction for Wales – Written Evidence Analysis Paper
    Number: WG18870 Welsh Government Consultation – Summary Report A Separate Legal Jurisdiction for Wales Date of issue: 04 December 2013 © Crown Copyright 2013 WG18870 Contents Foreword 3 Purpose and Background 4 The principle of a Separate Jurisdiction for Wales 6 Definition of legal jurisdiction and its essential features 8 Defined Geographical Territory 10 Body of law 11 The Administration of Justice 14 The Legal Profession 18 The Reserved Powers Model of Devolution 21 International Examples 22 Cost 23 1 2 Foreword We would like to thank all the respondents for taking the time to consider the questions in the consultation on a separate legal jurisdiction for Wales, and for providing such comprehensive evidence. The responses greatly assisted the Welsh Government’s policy development. We were also able to draw upon the valuable report of the Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee published in December 2012. The advantages and disadvantages of a separate legal jurisdiction were discussed at length in the responses to our consultation. Many of those in favour of establishing a separate jurisdiction acknowledge that, whilst this may not be an immediate prospect, there is a likelihood that it will occur at some stage in the future as the divergence between the law in Wales and England increases, and that preparatory steps are desirable now in order to facilitate this change. We agree with this view. The Welsh Government’s conclusions were set out in our evidence to the Commission on Devolution in Wales (the Silk Commission) in February of this year, and are summarised in paragraphs 16 -19 of that evidence.
    [Show full text]
  • Welsh Devolution and the Supreme Court Manon George Cardiff Law School E-Mail: [email protected] Phd Supervisor: Prof
    Welsh Devolution and the Supreme Court Manon George Cardiff Law School e-mail: [email protected] PhD Supervisor: Prof. Dan Wincott s.112 of GOWA 2006: the Counsel General or the Attorney General ‘Part 4’ of the Government of Wales Act 2006(GOWA 2006) was may refer the question whether a Bill…would be within the Assembly's enacted following an affirmative referendum, March 2011 legislative competence to the Supreme Court for decision The National Assembly for Wales now able to make primary Scope of such review is much more limited than the traditional scope legislation in all of the areas where it has devolved competence, of judicial review; ‘a more liberal approach would lead the courts into known as ‘Acts of the Assembly’ unwarranted scrutiny of the democratic legislative process’ (T Mullen (2010) 8 SLT 40) The Local Government (Wales) (Byelaws) Bill was the first Bill under these new powers to be passed by the Assembly. It was also the In Axa Insurance and others v Lord Advocate [2011] UKSC 46 the first piece of devolved legislation to be referred by the UK Government Court held that Acts of the Scottish Parliament are not subject to to the UK Supreme Court; not once has the UK Government referred a review on the grounds of irrationality, unreasonableness or Bill of the Scottish Parliament to the Supreme Court. arbitrariness, because ‘it would be wrong for the judges to substitute their views as to what is rational or reasonable for the considered On 13 August 2013 another Assembly Bill, the Agricultural Sector judgment of the democratically elected legislature.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards an Independent Wales
    TOWARDS AN INDEPENDENT WALES TOWARDS AN INDEPENDENT WALES Report of the Independence Commission September 2020 First impression: 2020 © The Independence Commission & Y Lolfa Cyf., 2020 This book is subject to copyright and may not be reproduced by any means except for review purposes without the prior written consent of the publishers. Cover design: Y Lolfa Cover picture: FfotoNant ISBN: 978-1-80099-000-5 Published and printed in Wales on paper from well-maintained forests by Y Lolfa Cyf., Talybont, Ceredigion SY24 5HE e-mail [email protected] website www.ylolfa.com tel 01970 832 304 fax 832 782 Contents Introduction 11 Executive summary 16 Main recommendations 20 Chapter 1: Building the road 29 The 20th century 29 The 21st century 32 Chapter 2: Public attitudes 43 Welsh identity 43 Independence 45 Independence: the referendum question 45 Chapter 3: A Welsh jurisdiction 52 Asymmetric devolution 53 The single England and Wales jurisdiction 54 Why Wales needs a separate jurisdiction 54 5 T OWARDS AN INDEPENDENT WALES A virtual legal jurisdiction 58 Justice powers 59 Implications of a distinct Welsh jurisdiction 60 The way ahead 63 Recommendations 66 Chapter 4: Effective Government and the civil service 67 Twenty years of evolution 68 The civil service culture 71 A Welsh public service 76 Recommendations 80 Chapter 5: Addressing the fiscal gap 82 A better model 86 The Welsh balance-sheet 88 Paying our way 90 A different sort of union 92 Welsh taxes 96 A UK common market 98 A middle way 101 Recommendations 102 6 Contents Chapter 6: Wales
    [Show full text]
  • Speaking Rights of Attorneys General/Law Officers in Legislatures
    Research and Information Service Briefing Paper Paper 32/13 19 February 2013 NIAR 154-13 Ray McCaffrey Speaking rights of Attorneys General/Law Officers in legislatures 1 Background At its meeting on 22 January 2013, the Committee on Procedures requested research on precedent and process used in other legislatures where the Attorney General/Law Officer is required to speak in plenary in respect of guidance s/he has issued. This request relates to Section 8 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2004 which requires the Attorney General for Northern Ireland (AGNI) to issue guidance to a range of criminal justice organisations on the exercise of their functions in a manner consistent with international human rights standards1. There is a potential scenario whereby a Member could table a motion against the guidance and there is currently no mechanism for the Attorney General to speak to it in such circumstances. Section 8(3) of the 2004 Act states: (3) Any guidance issued or revised under this section 1 Section 8 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2004 as amended Providing research and information services to the Northern Ireland Assembly 1 NIAR 154-13 Briefing Paper (a) shall be published in such manner as the Attorney General for Northern Ireland thinks appropriate; (b) shall be laid before [the Northern Ireland Assembly]; and (c) shall not come into operation until the Attorney General for Northern Ireland by order so provides2. The accompanying explanatory note provides more information on this provision: Subsection (3) requires the guidance to be published, to be laid before (the Assembly) and to be brought into operation by an order made by the Attorney General, subject to the negative resolution procedure, when it is issued, and each time it is revised.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenge and Opportunity: the Draft Wales Bill 2015
    CHALLENGE AND OPPORTUNITY: THE DRAFT WALES BILL 2015 February 2016 Challenge and Opportunity: The Draft Wales Bill 2015 Contact details: Wales Governance Centre at Cardiff University Pierhead Building Cardiff Bay CF99 1NA [email protected] http://sites.cardiff.ac.uk/wgc/ About us The Wales Governance Centre is a research centre that forms part of Cardiff University’s School of Law and Politics undertaking innovative research into all aspects of the law, politics, government and political economy of Wales, as well the wider UK and European contexts of territorial governance. A key objective of the Centre is to facilitate and encourage informed public debate of key developments in Welsh governance not only through its research, but also through events and postgraduate teaching. 2 THIS REPORT WAS PRODUCED BY AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW GROUP CONSISTING OF: ALAN COGBILL (Chair), former Director of the Wales Office ROBERT HAZELL CBE Professor of Government and the Constitution and former Director of the Constitution Unit at University College London SIR STEPHEN LAWS former First Parliamentary Counsel and Member of the McKay Commission on the Consequences of Devolution for the House of Commons EMYR LEWIS Senior Regional Partner Wales at Blake Morgan LLP LOWRI MORGAN Head of Wales Office, The Law Society RICHARD RAWLINGS (Rapporteur), Professor of Public Law at University College London and former Legal Adviser to the House of Lords Constitution Committee SIR PAUL SILK Former Clerk to the National Assembly for Wales and Chair of the Commission on Devolution
    [Show full text]
  • Key Issues for the Fifth Assembly
    Key Issues for the Fifth Assembly National Assembly for Wales Research Service The National Assembly for Wales is the democratically elected body that represents the interests of Wales and its people, makes laws for Wales and holds the Welsh Government to account. Contact Us Research Service National Assembly for Wales Tŷ Hywel Cardiff Bay Cardiff CF99 1NA q: 0300 200 6328 E: [email protected] y: Assembly.Wales/InBrief a: @SeneddResearch a: Assembly.Wales/Research © National Assembly for Wales Commission Copyright 2016 The text of this document may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing that it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading or derogatory context. The material must be acknowledged as copyright of the National Assembly for Wales Commission and the title of the document specified. Key Issues for the Fifth Assembly Editors: Elfyn Henderson and Rhys Iorwerth Working Group: Amy Clifton, Chloe Corbyn, Christian Tipples, Michael Dauncey, Robin Wilkinson, Stephen Boyce, Tom Douch Contributors: Alys Thomas, Amy Clifton, Andrew Minnis, Anne Thomas, Ben Stokes, Chloe Corbyn, Christian Tipples, David Millett, Elfyn Henderson, Gareth Thomas, Gregg Jones, Hannah Johnson, Helen Jones, Jonathan Baxter, Joseph Champion, Megan Jones, Michael Dauncey, Nia Seaton, Owen Holzinger, Paul Worthington, Philippa Watkins, Rebekah James, Rhys Iorwerth, Robin Wilkinson, Sam Jones, Siân Hughes, Siân Thomas, Stephen Boyce, Tom Douch Printed by the National Assembly for Wales Commission, Cardiff Bay, Cardiff, CF99 1NA. Promoted by the National Assembly for Wales Commission, Cardiff Bay, Cardiff, CF99 1NA National Assembly for Wales Research Service Foreword Welcome to the Fifth Assembly and to this specially prepared publication from the National Assembly’s Research Service.
    [Show full text]
  • The Law Officers: a Constitutional and Functional Overview
    BRIEFING PAPER Number 08919, 28 May 2020 The Law Officers: a By Conor McCormick (Queen's University Belfast) and Graeme Constitutional and Cowie (HoC Library) Functional Overview Contents: 1. Overview 2. England and Wales 3. Scotland 4. Northern Ireland 5. Political independence 6. Law officers’ legal advice 7. Devolution issues Annex: Law Officers timeline www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary 2 The Law Officers: a Constitutional and Functional Overview Contents Summary 3 1. Overview 4 1.1 What is a law officer? 4 1.2 How many law officers are there? 4 1.3 What do law officers do? 5 1.4 What relationship do law officers have with Government? 5 1.5 Are law officers Parliamentarians? 6 2. England and Wales 10 2.1 Attorney General for England and Wales 10 2.2 Solicitor General for England and Wales 21 2.3 Counsel General for Wales (from 2007) 22 3. Scotland 28 3.1 Lord Advocate 28 3.2 Solicitor General for Scotland 33 3.3 Advocate General for Scotland (from 1999) 34 4. Northern Ireland 39 4.1 Attorney General for Northern Ireland 39 4.2 Advocate General for Northern Ireland (from 2010) 46 5. Political independence 48 5.1 Relationship with Cabinet 48 5.2 Independence and prosecutorial functions 50 6. Law officers’ legal advice 51 6.1 Law officers’ convention 51 6.2 Notable examples of law officers’ advice/opinion 51 7. Devolution issues 56 7.1 What is a “devolution issue”? 56 7.2 Why do devolution issues matter for the law officers? 56 7.3 What powers do the law officers have? 57 Annex: Law Officers timeline 58 Contributing Authors: The Library would like to thank Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Form and Accessibility of the Law Applicable in Wales
    Law Commission Consultation Paper No 223 FORM AND ACCESSIBILITY OF THE LAW APPLICABLE IN WALES A Consultation Paper ii THE LAW COMMISSION – HOW WE CONSULT About the Commission: The Law Commission is the statutory independent body created by the Law Commissions Act 1965 to keep the law under review and to recommend reform where it is needed. The Law Commissioners are: The Rt Hon Lord Justice Lloyd Jones (Chairman), Stephen Lewis, Professor David Ormerod QC and Nicholas Paines QC. The Chief Executive is Elaine Lorimer. Topic of this consultation paper: The form and accessibility of the law applicable in Wales. Availability of materials: This consultation paper is available on our website in English and in Welsh at http://www.lawcom.gov.uk. Duration of the consultation: 9 July 2015 to 9 October 2015. How to respond Please send your responses either: By email to: [email protected] or By post to: Sarah Young, Law Commission, 1st Floor, Tower, Post Point 1.54, 52 Queen Anne’s Gate, London SW1H 9AG Tel: 020 3334 3953 If you send your comments by post, it would be helpful if, where possible, you also send them to us electronically. After the consultation: In the light of the responses we receive, we will decide our final recommendations and we will present them to the Welsh Government. Consultation Principles: The Law Commission follows the Consultation Principles set out by the Cabinet Office, which provide guidance on type and scale of consultation, duration, timing, accessibility and transparency. The Principles are available on the Cabinet Office website at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/consultation-principles-guidance.
    [Show full text]