DOCSLIB.ORG

Commons Committee Stage of 'Constitutional' Bills

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Commons Committee Stage of 'Constitutional' Bills The Commons committee stage of 'constitutional' bills Research Paper 97/53 20 May 1997 The new Government has come to power pledged to enact a substantial package of 'constitutional reform'. Before and during the May general election there was speculation that a Labour Government would seek to enact its legislation by way of revised legislative processes in Parliament, and in particular would not always retain the committee stage of its 'constitutional bills' in Committee of the Whole House, but send some or all of them 'upstairs' to standing committee. This Paper examines the theory and practice of keeping 'constitutional bills' on the Floor of the House, and is a companion Paper to Research Paper 97/64, Aspects of Parliamentary reform, which examines the issues surrounding possible changes in Parliamentary procedure and practice, generally and at the outset of a new Parliament. Barry K Winetrobe Home Affairs Section House of Commons Library Library Research Papers are compiled for the benefit of Members of Parliament and their personal staff. Authors are available to discuss the contents of these papers with Members and their staff but cannot advise members of the general public. Summary The practice that the committee stage of certain bills of a 'constitutional' nature are not sent routinely to standing committee but are retained on the Floor, in Committee of the Whole House, is derived from the immediate post-war period when the Labour Government under Attlee came to power with a massive majority in the summer of 1945. It proposed that the practice of sending all public bills in the Commons 'upstairs' should become the norm, and that the pre-war exceptions for major bills be abandoned , except for some Bills, such as 'bills of first class constitutional importance'. This proposal was considered and accepted by a Procedure Committee and by the House. This Paper examines the difficulties in defining 'constitutional bills', especially those of 'first class constitutional importance', in the Westminster context, and then considers the history and development of the Commons committee stage of bills, with particular reference to the trend since the late nineteenth century towards taking it 'upstairs' in standing committee rather than on the Floor. The practice of splitting the Commons committee stage of bills in this context is also examined, although it appears extremely rare for a bill which may be defined by some as 'constitutional' to be treated in this way in modern times. Splitting is commonly used for Finance Bills (since the late 1960s) or to allow particular issues, especially those of a social/moral nature, within a public bill to be considered fully by the whole House. Finally, the more recent debate on the so-called 'convention' of keeping 'constitutional bills' on the Floor (including exchanges in the new Parliament) is reviewed, citing academic and political analyses of Parliamentary practice and possible changes by an incoming Labour Government. CONTENTS Page I Introduction 5 II 'Constitutional bills': some problems of definition6 A. 'constitutional' bills6 B. Bills of 'first class constitutional importance'10 III Commons committee stage13 A. History and Development13 IV Splitting of the committee stage18 V The current debate22 Appendix 'Constitutional Bills': second readings29 Research Paper 97/53 "You cannot play about with the British Constitution in a Committee upstairs, to put it colloquially" -- Herbert Morrison, 19451 "The rules of the House contain no definition of what is, or what is not, a constitutional Bill, nor do they lay down any special procedures for the Chair to enforce in relation to such Bills" -- Mr Speaker, 19812 "The Maastricht Bill had to be debated in this Chamber, of course, because it was a constitutional issue" --- Madam Speaker, 7 May 19973 I Introduction There was much discussion before and during the general election campaign about the possibility that a Labour Government, with a manifesto containing a significant package of 'constitutional reform', could seek to alter the rules and practices of the two Houses' legislative processes in order to enact it. Perhaps the main suggestion that has been debated is that all or part of the committee stage of such bills may not be taken entirely or at all on the Floor, in Committee of the Whole House ('CWH'), but 'upstairs' in standing committee. Bills are normally committed to a standing committee "unless the House otherwise order": S.O. no. 63(1). Erskine May states that "it is the regular practice for Government bills of first class constitutional importance to be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."4 The basis for the practice that 'constitutional bills' are invariably taken in CWH appears to be the changes made at the outset of the Attlee Government immediately after Labour's huge victory in the 1945 election, proposed by the Government, considered by a Procedure Committee and approved by the House.5 In these changes, the norm became that all public bills were sent 'upstairs' to standing committee for their committee stage, subject to a number of exceptions, notably 'bills of first class constitutional importance'. However, as with any apparent Parliamentary procedural 'precedent' for a particular 'convention'6 or practice, the context in which it arose or was created needs to be examined for its relevance to contemporary circumstances. This note examines these issues by considering the meaning of 'constitutional bill' (especially 'bill of first class constitutional importance'); the Commons committee stage of public bills, especially those said to be of a 'constitutional' nature, and the current debate over this issue. 1 As Leader of the House, in evidence to the Procedure Committee, 18.9.45, HC 9 of 1945-46, p.22, Q198 2 HC Deb vol 996 c.750, 12.1.81 3 HC Deb vol 294 c6, 7.5.97 4 21st ed., p.479 5 This is examined in more detail in section III of this Paper 6 On the meaning of 'convention' in its constitutional context, see Research Paper 96/82, The constitution: principles and development, 18.7.96, section IVA 5 Research Paper 97/53 II 'Constitutional bills': some problems of definition A. 'constitutional' bills As the UK does not have a written constitution, there exists no legally definable class of 'constitutional' legislation, although the term is often used in the context of its Parliamentary legislative process. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing in our law as a hierarchy of primary legislation,7 and definitions of classes such as 'constitutional' will arise in their own particular contexts. Some issues, and their legislation, (local government is a common example) may be described as 'constitutional', for example, by critics of such legislation as a way of opposing its provisions. Some issues may be 'constitutional' in a narrow sense, without being regarded necessarily, in a political sense, as major or controversial . This may include matters such as Parliamentary pensions legislation or amendments to the various Ombudsman schemes. Many measures will be an examination of the indexes or lists of statutes in, say, the 'constitutional law' volume of a legal encyclopedia such as Halsbury's Laws, Halsbury's Statutes or the Stair Encyclopedia provides a flavour of the range of potential subjects that can be described as 'constitutional'.8 Generally speaking, constitutional issues include those relating to the powers and structure of the state (borders, form of government, head of state); the system of government of the country (Parliament, executive and judiciary), elections, civil rights and liberties, immigration/nationality, international and supranational relations (especially EU affairs) and so on. Not all of these (eg civil liberties, local government, 'routine' international treaties) would necessarily always be regarded as 'core' constitutional issues. Any proposed legislation relating to the basic existence of the United Kingdom as a political and geographical entity (eg Northern Ireland or devolution legislation); the structure, operation and powers of Parliament and the Crown (in its political, official and monarchical contexts; elections and the franchise; emergency powers; innovations such as referendums or bills of rights), and major issues of foreign affairs (eg EU treaties) would generally be regarded as prima facie constitutional matters. Debate arose in 1945, in the particular context not only of post-war reconstruction but of the new Labour Government's substantial nationalisation programme, on the question of whether major economic measures could be regarded as 'constitutional'. Something of a similar argument was roused from the Opposition front bench during Business Questions on 15 May 7 On this, and possible Union and EU exceptions, see Research Paper 96/82 8 Even then, many other statutes will be listed separately in volumes dealing with, say, Parliament or, elections. In Appendix A of the Constitution Unit's 1996 report Delivering constitutional reform, there is a list of 'constitutional legislation' in this century. 6 Research Paper 97/53 when Alastair Goodlad appeared to regard a Bill on the Bank of England as 'constitutional'.9 However the Leader of the House, Ann Taylor, did not accept all the 'Bills mentioned by Mr Goodlad were constitutional'.10 An interesting example of the definitional controversies that can arise, especially in the context of committee stage, is the British Nationality Bill 1980-81:11 Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York): Will the Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not think that the Leader of the House reconsider his judgment that Nationality Bill is a constitutional Bill in the the Committee stage of the Nationality Bill should normally accepted sense of the word, which is a not be taken on the Floor of the House? Contrary Bill concerned with the machinery of Government. to his view that this is not a constitutional Bill, It is the Government's intention that the Bill should does he not recognise that this will be the first time be sent upstairs.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Table of Statutes
    Table of Statutes Commonwealth Constitution: 297 s 9: 296 Ch III: 5, 14, 15, 234, 363, 370, 372, 391, s 10: 296 397, 398, 404-406, 410 s 11: 296 s 1: 391, 422, 436 s 12: 17 s 7: 417, 422, 423, 425, 428, 429, 432, s 13: 296 436, 441 s 14: 296 s 8: 436 s 15: 17, 18, 296 s 15: 180, 193 s 15(1): 6 s 16: 436 Australia (Request and Consent) Act s 24: 416, 417, 422-425, 428, 429, 432, 1985: 296 436, 441 Australian Capital Territory (Self-Gov- s 29: 422 ernment) 1988 s 30: 422, 436 s 22: 66 s 49: 317 Broadcasting Act 1942 s 51: 65 Pt IIID: 426 s 51(xxix): 233 Builders Labourers Federation (Cancel- s 51(xxxi): 380 lation of Registration) Act 1986: 367, s 51(xxxv): 426 370 s 51(xxxvii): 3 Builders Labourers Federation (Cancel- s 51(xxxviii): 3, 281, 285, 287, 288 lation of Registration – Conse- s 53: 191 quential Provisions) Act 1986: 367 s 57: 185, 192 s 7: 368 s 61: 391 Builders Labourers Federation Legis- s 71: 14, 384, 391, 396, 397, 399 lation Amendment Act 1990: 389 s 73: 384 Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902: 422 s 74: 273 Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904: s 77(iii): 14, 384, 396, 399, 405 367 s 80: 380 Constitution Alteration (State Debts) Act s 90: 66, 67 1929: 142 s 92: 380 Customs Act 1901: 66 s 105A: 142, 144, 148 Financial Agreements (Commonwealth s 105A(3): 144 Liability) Act 1932: 143 s 105A(5): 144 Financial Agreements Enforcement Act s 106: 78, 79, 234, 352, 371, 432, 440 1932: 143, 146, 152, 157 s 107: 356, 357 Pt II: 144 s 116: 380 Financial Agreements (State Legislation) s 117: 380 Act 1932: 148 s 128: 18, 115-117, 429, 434
    [Show full text]
  • Devolution, Debate and Change: Changing the UK’S Constitutional Settlements Carol Howells and Edwin Parks
    Chapter 2 Devolution, debate and change: Changing the UK’s constitutional settlements Carol Howells and Edwin Parks Abstract Devolution has been ‘a process not an event’ resulting in new constitutional settlements . This chapter covers the processes of devolution, processes which mirror the first 50 years of the Open University and the first 22 years of the OU Law School. The chapter explores the devolution of powers to parliaments in Scotland and Wales. It begins with the referendums of the early 1970s and traces events leading up to both the initial transfer of powers and those resulting in subsequent transfer of powers. The process has not been without its critics and the use of differing models helped create complexity re-enforcing historical legacies. Devolution created new legal orders and challenged accepted traditional constitutional theory. The story is not yet over. 1. Introduction The establishment of The Open University (OU) in 1969 changed the landscape of higher education in the United Kingdom (UK). Its mission of being ‘Open to people, places, methods and ideas’1 and its promotion of social justice through high quality education2 has challenged thinking around educational practices. In the 50 years since it was established it has transformed the lives of many through its work and partnerships. It has students in over 90% of UK postcodes3 and continues to hold a unique position within the UK’s Higher Education sector working across, and receiving funding from, all four UK nations. In celebrating its 50th anniversary its Vice Chancellor expressed pride in being the UK’s only four nations university.4 During the OU’s 50-year history there have been significant changes and challenges within the higher education landscape.
    [Show full text]
  • Imagereal Capture
    THE ACT OF SETTLEMENT AND THE EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS BY KEVEN BooKER* and GEORGE WINTERTON** Following recent disagreement between the Commonwealth and Victorian Solicitors-General over whether the States have power to employ aliens in public offices in view of section 3 clause 5 of the Act of Settlement 1701 (U.K.), this Article considers whether that clause applies in the States and, if it does, whether they or the Commonwealth can amend or repeal it. These issues are examined in light of the common law on the employment of aliens in public office, the reasons for the enactment of the Act of Settlement, and the question whether, and to what extent, the doctrine of paramount force applies to legislation enacted prior to the establishment of a colony. The Article concludes that section 3 clause 5 did not apply in Australia, either by reception or by paramount force, although the common law on the employment of aliens applied by reception; and the common law did not disqualify naturalized persons from holding public office. The authors argue that in any event, Commonwealth legislation, validly enacted under the "Naturalization and aliens" power (section 51(xix)) has removed any disabilities the Act of Settlement might have imposed on the employment of naturalized persons. Moreover, pursuant to section 51 ( xxxviii), the Commonwealth could authorize the States, or any of them, to pass legislation repug­ nant to Imperial legislation extending to the State by paramount force. 1. Introduction Imperial statutes became part of the law operating in Australian colonies in two ways. Statutes intended to apply in a colony were said to operate there by paramount force.1 Statutes not intended specifically to apply in a colony, but forming part of the law of England at the date of settlement of the colony (or some later date set by legislation)2 and applicable to the circumstances of the colony, were said to apply by way of reception.3 A colony could repeal or amend statutes inherited by reception, but not those applying by paramount force.
    [Show full text]
  • LSE Brexit: Welsh Independence: Can Brexit Awaken the Sleeping Dragon? Page 1 of 4
    LSE Brexit: Welsh independence: can Brexit awaken the sleeping dragon? Page 1 of 4 Welsh independence: can Brexit awaken the sleeping dragon? Wales is the only devolved nation within the UK that has never caused a stir in constitutional terms. This is because Welsh independence has remained largely a dormant political issue, both within Wales and within the wider UK context. Can Brexit awaken the sleeping dragon, asks Darryn Nyatanga (University of Liverpool)? Brexit does present the opportunity to awaken real discussion on the potential of Welsh Independence. This can be attributed to two reasons, firstly – independence could be the only way to ensure Welsh interests are met after Brexit. Also, there has been a growth in sub-state nationalism within the UK, exposed by the Brexit referendum and the withdrawal process, highlighting the point that the UK is united in name only. Welsh nationalism The agenda for Welsh independence can only arguably be pushed by a strong sense of nationalism. This is the case in both Scotland and Northern Ireland. In Scotland, nationalism has been spearheaded by the SNP. Scottish independence (and Scottish home rule – before the introduction of devolution in 1998) has long been the main objective for the SNP since its genesis. In the case of Northern Ireland, two main forms of national identity exist; British and Irish. The latter identity challenges the status quo of the UK’s unitary nature. Irish nationalism in political terms is spearheaded by Sinn Fein, who advocate for the constitutional status of Northern Ireland to change i.e. Irish (re)unification.
    [Show full text]
  • Brexit and Parliamentary Sovereignty Keith Ewing∗
    bs_bs_banner Brexit and Parliamentary Sovereignty Keith Ewing∗ This note addresses the implications of R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union for the legal principle of parliamentary sovereignty, and argues that the strong restatement of the latter is the most significant feature of the decision. The aim here is to show how traditional principle in the Dicey tradition has been strongly applied against the competing claims of EU law, the royal prerogative, the referendum and devolution. However, the note also argues that the claims relating to parliamentary sovereignty could have produced a different result and that the most compelling feature of the case was the argument that was not forcefully put by the Government, namely that Parliament had already provided sufficient authority for the triggering of Article 50. INTRODUCTION On 23 June 2016 the people of the United Kingdom and Gibraltar voted to leave the European Union. The Brexiters won by a slim majority (51.89 per cent to 48.11 per cent) on a 72 per cent turnout, and they lost comprehensively in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Brexiters nevertheless claimed that the Government had a mandate to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and to do so legally with prerogative power (and without parlia- mentary approval), a claim perhaps reinforced politically by the Conservative Party election manifesto in 2015.1 The latter had set in train the referendum process accompanied by a promise that the Conservatives if elected would re- spect the result, evidently not expecting the outcome delivered. The problem, however, is that the European Union Referendum Act 2015 was silent on the legal effects of the vote, perhaps reflecting the confidence of all concerned that the Brexiters would fail.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitution of the United Kingdom
    The Cambridge Law Journal http://journals.cambridge.org/CLJ Additional services for The Cambridge Law Journal: Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here The Constitution of the United Kingdom Rodney Brazier The Cambridge Law Journal / Volume 58 / Issue 01 / March 1999, pp 96 - 128 DOI: null, Published online: 08 September 2000 Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0008197399001063 How to cite this article: Rodney Brazier (1999). The Constitution of the United Kingdom. The Cambridge Law Journal, 58, pp 96-128 Request Permissions : Click here Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/CLJ, IP address: 86.185.243.202 on 23 Aug 2014 Cambridge Law Journal, 58(1), March 1999, pp. 96±128 Printed in Great Britain THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM Rodney Brazier* I. First Thoughts The Labour Government's diVusion of power both to new institutions and to citizens is designed to alter old constitutional settlements within the United Kingdom. By the end of this last Parliament of the twentieth century the British constitution will have been reshaped. The volume and detail of the legislation that is being brought forward to achieve this cannot be analysed adequately in one article. I intend, therefore, to concentrate here on the redrawing of legislative and executive authority between the component parts of the United Kingdom. Even doing that will require some selectivity. We need to see what will be the nature of the United Kingdom as a constitutional concept when those re-arrangements are in place. An appreciation is required of the limits on the powers that are being cededÐespecially in relation to Scotland, which was once an independent state and where many aspire to independence.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of the Union
    THE CULTURE of PROSPERITY THE CULTURE of PROSPERITY ROADS TO FREEDOM | NOVEMBER 2014 The Future of the Union by Vernon Bogdanor, Dafydd Elis-Thomas, Dominic Lawson and Hywel Williams www.li.com www.prosperity.com ROADS TO FREEDOM | 2 ABOUT THE LEGATUM INSTITUTE Front cover shows (left to right): The Legatum Institute is a charitable public policy think-tank whose Owain GlyndŴr (c.1349-c.1415 ). A direct descendant of the Princes of Powys (mid-Wales) mission is to help people lead more prosperous lives. The Institute and of Deheubarth (south-west Wales) Glyndŵr defines prosperity as wellbeing, not just wealth. Its Legatum Prosperity led the conventional life of a Welsh nobleman Index™ assesses a wide range of indicators including education, health, assimilated to English government until the social capital, entrepreneurship, and personal freedom to rank 142 late 1390s. But a quarrel in the late 1390s with Lord Grey de Ruthin, a Norman baron, countries. Published annually, the Index has become an essential tool for over landownership in north-east Wales turned governments around the world. Glyndŵr into a rebel with a cause. He led the national revolt that spread throughout the country Through research programmes including The Culture of Prosperity, from 1400 onwards and, aided by the French, he Transitions Forum, and the Economics of Prosperity, the Institute seeks won several major victories over English forces. to understand what drives and restrains national success and individual Edward I, King of England (1272-1307) whose flourishing. The Institute co-publishes with Foreign Policy magazine, the expansionist military campaigns sought to Democracy Lab, whose on-the-ground journalists report on political abolish the sovereign powers enjoyed by the Scottish Crown and the Welsh dynastic princes.
    [Show full text]
  • Form and Accessibility of the Law Applicable in Wales
    Law Commission Consultation Paper No 223 FORM AND ACCESSIBILITY OF THE LAW APPLICABLE IN WALES A Consultation Paper ii THE LAW COMMISSION – HOW WE CONSULT About the Commission: The Law Commission is the statutory independent body created by the Law Commissions Act 1965 to keep the law under review and to recommend reform where it is needed. The Law Commissioners are: The Rt Hon Lord Justice Lloyd Jones (Chairman), Stephen Lewis, Professor David Ormerod QC and Nicholas Paines QC. The Chief Executive is Elaine Lorimer. Topic of this consultation paper: The form and accessibility of the law applicable in Wales. Availability of materials: This consultation paper is available on our website in English and in Welsh at http://www.lawcom.gov.uk. Duration of the consultation: 9 July 2015 to 9 October 2015. How to respond Please send your responses either: By email to: [email protected] or By post to: Sarah Young, Law Commission, 1st Floor, Tower, Post Point 1.54, 52 Queen Anne’s Gate, London SW1H 9AG Tel: 020 3334 3953 If you send your comments by post, it would be helpful if, where possible, you also send them to us electronically. After the consultation: In the light of the responses we receive, we will decide our final recommendations and we will present them to the Welsh Government. Consultation Principles: The Law Commission follows the Consultation Principles set out by the Cabinet Office, which provide guidance on type and scale of consultation, duration, timing, accessibility and transparency. The Principles are available on the Cabinet Office website at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/consultation-principles-guidance.
    [Show full text]
  • A Summary of Recent Constitutional Reform in the United Kingdom Lesley Dingle
    International Journal of Legal Information the Official Journal of the International Association of Law Libraries Volume 33 Article 7 Issue 1 Spring 2005 1-1-2005 A Summary of Recent Constitutional Reform in the United Kingdom Lesley Dingle Bradley Miller Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/ijli The International Journal of Legal Information is produced by The nI ternational Association of Law Libraries. Recommended Citation Dingle, Lesley and Miller, Bradley (2005) "A Summary of Recent Constitutional Reform in the United Kingdom," International Journal of Legal Information: Vol. 33: Iss. 1, Article 7. Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/ijli/vol33/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in International Journal of Legal Information by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A summary of recent constitutional reform in the United Kingdom * ** LESLEY DINGLE AND BRADLEY MILLER Contents Present constitution: the status quo Background to post-1997 proposals for constitutional change Changes influenced by domestic policy post-1997 Reform of the House of Commons Reform of the House of Lords Judicial Reform Devolution Scottish Parliament Welsh Assembly Northern Ireland Assembly Devolution to English Regions Other areas of reform Monarchy and the royal prerogative Civil Service Electoral Law Proportional Representation (PR) Referenda Electoral procedures Freedom of Information legislation Changes influenced by European Legislation General European Union legislation Human Rights European Union Constitution Conclusions Present Constitution: the status quo The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland consists of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.1 *Foreign & International Law Librarian, Squire Law Library, University of Cambridge, UK.
    [Show full text]
  • Nationalism and Devolution: an Enquiry Into The
    Nationalism and Devolution: An Enquiry into the Changing Dynamics of the Territorial Constitution of the United Kingdom Gareth John Prys Evans Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) Aberystwyth Law School Aberystwyth University 2018 1 Declaration and Statements Word Count of thesis: 86,826 DECLARATION This work has not previously been accepted in substance for any degree and is not being concurrently submitted in candidature for any degree. Candidate name Gareth John Prys Evans Signature: Date STATEMENT 1 This thesis is the result of my own investigations, except where otherwise stated. Where *correction services have been used, the extent and nature of the correction is clearly marked in a footnote(s). Other sources are acknowledged by footnotes giving explicit references. A bibliography is appended. Signature: Date [*this refers to the extent to which the text has been corrected by others] STATEMENT 2 I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available for photocopying and for inter-library loan, and for the title and summary to be made available to outside organisations. Signature: Date NB: Candidates on whose behalf a bar on access (hard copy) has been approved by the University should use the following version of Statement 2: I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available for photocopying and for inter-library loans after expiry of a bar on access approved by Aberystwyth University. Signature: Date 2 Summary Candidate’s Surname/Family Name Evans Candidate’s Forenames (in full) Gareth John Prys Candidate for the Degree of PhD Academic year the work submitted 2018-19 for examination Summary: The United Kingdom is in a prolonged episode of constitutional unsettlement.
    [Show full text]
  • Devolution in Wales, 1998-2020
    BRIEFING PAPER Number CBP-8318, 6 April 2020 "A process, not an By David Torrance event": Devolution in Wales, 1998-2020 Contents: 1. Wales: constitutional position 2. Historical background 3. Government of Wales Act 1998 4. Richard Commission 5. Government of Wales Act 2006 6. Holtham Commission 7. 2011 referendum on law- making powers 8. Silk Commission I: Wales’ financial powers 9. Wales Act 2014 10. Silk Commission II: Wales' legislative powers 11. Wales Act 2017 12. Constitutional debates 13. Information and further reading 14. Political leaders in Wales 15. Chronology of devolution in Wales 16. Appendix www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary 2 'A process, not an event': Devolution in Wales, 1998-2020 Contents Summary 4 1. Wales: constitutional position 5 1.1 Reserved powers 5 1.2 UK Parliament 5 1.3 The European Union 6 1.4 Senedd Cymru/Welsh Parliament 7 1.5 How primary legislation is passed 7 2. Historical background 9 2.1 “Administrative devolution” 9 2.2 The Welsh Office 9 2.3 1979 devolution referendum 10 2.4 1997 devolution referendum 11 3. Government of Wales Act 1998 12 3.1 Government of Wales Bill 1997-98 12 3.2 First elections to the National Assembly 13 3.3 Criticisms of the Welsh devolution settlement 13 4. Richard Commission 14 4.1 Primary legislative powers 14 4.2 Structure of the Assembly 14 4.3 Electoral arrangements for the Assembly 15 4.4 Responses to the Richard Commission 15 5. Government of Wales Act 2006 16 5.1 Criticisms of the Government of Wales Act 2006 16 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Statute Law Repeals Bill
    The Law Commission and The Scottish Law Commission (LAW COM. No.106) (SCOT. LAW COM. No. 63) STATUTE LAW REVISION: TENTH REPORT DRAFT STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL Presented to Parliamentby the Lord High Chancellorand the Lord Advocate by Command of Her Majesty December 1980 LONDON HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE' f4.20net Cmnd 8089 The Law Commission and the ScottishLaw Commission were , set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are- The Honourable Mr. Justice Kerr, Chairman Mr. Stephen M. Cretney. Mr. Stephen Edell. Mr. W. A. B. Forbes, Q.C. Dr. Peter M. North The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr. B. M. F. O’Brien and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, I Theobalds Road, London, WClN 2BQ. 1 The Scottish Law Commissioners are- The Honourable Lord Hunter, V.R.D., Chairman Mr. A. E. Anton, C.B.E. Mr. R. D. D. Bertram. Mr. J. Murray, Q.C. Professor T. B. Smith, Q.C. The Secretary of the Scottish Law Commission is Mr. R. Eadie and its offices are at 140 Causewayside,Edinburgh, EH9 1PR. ii THE LAW COMMISSION and THE SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION STATUTE LAW REVISION: TENTH REPORT Draft Statute Law (Repeals) Bill prepared under section 3(1)(d) of the Law Commissions Act 1965. To theRight Honourable the Lord Hailsham ofst. Marylebone, C.H., Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, and the Right Honourablethe Lord Mackay ofClashfern, Q.C., Her Majesty’s Advocate. * We have prepared the draft Bill which is Appendix 1to this Report and recommend that effect be given to the proposals contained in it.
    [Show full text]