DOCSLIB.ORG

Regulation of Health Care Professionals

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Regulation of Health Care Professionals Law Commission Scottish Law Commission Northern Ireland Law Commission Joint Consultation Paper LCCP 202 / SLCDP 153 / NILC 12 (2012) REGULATION OF HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS REGULATION OF SOCIAL CARE PROFESSIONALS IN ENGLAND A Joint Consultation Paper ii THE LAW COMMISSIONS: HOW WE CONSULT About the Commissions: The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission were set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965. The Northern Ireland Law Commission was set up by section 50 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. Each Commission has the purpose of promoting reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Rt Hon Lord Justice Munby (Chairman), Professor Elizabeth Cooke, Mr David Hertzell, Professor David Ormerod and Frances Patterson QC. The Chief Executive is Elaine Lorimer. The Scottish Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Lord Drummond Young (Chairman), Laura J Dunlop QC, Patrick Layden QC TD, Professor Hector L MacQueen and Dr Andrew J M Steven. The Chief Executive is Malcolm McMillan. The Northern Ireland Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice McCloskey (Chairman), Professor Sean Doran, Mr Neil Faris, Mr Robert Hunniford and Dr Venkat Iyer. The Chief Executive is Ms Judena Goldring. Topic: This consultation covers the regulation of health care professionals and the regulation of social care professionals in England. Geographical scope: England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. An impact assessment is available on our website. Duration of the consultation: 1 March to 31 May 2012. How to respond Send your responses either – By email to: [email protected] or By post to: Tim Spencer-Lane, Law Commission, Steel House, 11 Tothill Street, London SW1H 9LJ Tel: 020 3334 0267 / Fax: 020 3334 0201 If you send your comments by post, it would be helpful if, where possible, you also sent them to us electronically (in any commonly used format). After the consultation: We plan to publish a final report with a draft Bill in 2014. It will be for Parliament to decide whether to change the law. Freedom of information: We will treat all responses as public documents. We may attribute comments and publish a list of respondents’ names. If you wish to submit a confidential response, it is important to read our Freedom of Information Statement on the next page. Availability: You can download this consultation paper and the other documents free of charge from our websites at: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk (See A–Z of projects > Regulation of Healthcare Professionals); http://www.nilawcommission.gov.uk (See Publications); and http://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk (See News column). iii CODE OF PRACTICE ON CONSULTATION The Law Commission is a signatory to the Government’s Code of Practice described below. THE SEVEN CONSULTATION CRITERIA Criterion 1: When to consult Formal consultation should take place at a stage when there is scope to influence the policy outcome. Criterion 2: Duration of consultation exercise Consultations should normally last for at least 12 weeks with consideration given to longer timescales where feasible and sensible. Criterion 3: Clarity and scope of impact Consultation documents should be clear about the consultation process, what is being proposed, the scope to influence and the expected costs and benefits of the proposals. Criterion 4: Accessibility of consultation exercises Consultation exercises should be designed to be accessible to, and clearly targeted at, those people the exercise is intended to reach. Criterion 5: The burden of consultation Keeping the burden of consultation to a minimum is essential if consultations are to be effective and if consultees’ buy-in to the process is to be obtained. Criterion 6: Responsiveness of consultation exercises Consultation responses should be analysed carefully and clear feedback should be provided to participants following the consultation. Criterion 7: Capacity to consult Officials running consultations should seek guidance in how to run an effective consultation exercise and share what they have learned from the experience. CONSULTATION CO-ORDINATOR The Consultation Co-ordinator for this project is Phil Hodgson. You are invited to send comments to the Consultation Co-ordinator about the extent to which the criteria have been observed and any ways of improving the consultation process. Contact: Phil Hodgson, Law Commission, Steel House, 11 Tothill Street, London SW1H 9LJ Email: [email protected] Full details of the Government’s Code of Practice on Consultation are available on the BIS website at http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/better-regulation/consultation-guidance. Freedom of Information statement Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be subject to publication or disclosure in accordance with the access to information regimes (such as the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA)). If you want information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please explain to us why you regard the information as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Law Commissions. The Law Commissions will process your personal data in accordance with the DPA and in most circumstances this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties. iv LAW COMMISSION SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION NORTHERN IRELAND LAW COMMISSION REGULATION OF HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS REGULATION OF SOCIAL CARE PROFESSIONALS IN ENGLAND CONTENTS Foreword by the Chairmen of the Law Commissions x Foreword by the Lead Commissioners xi Table of abbreviations xii PART 1: INTRODUCTION 1 Background to the project 2 Historical context 3 Where are we now? 5 Structure of the consultation paper 9 Responding to this consultation paper 9 PART 2: THE STRUCTURE OF REFORM AND ACCOUNTABILITY 11 Our general approach to law reform 11 Rules and regulations 16 Public consultation 22 Parliamentary accountability 25 Publication requirements 29 Section 60 orders 31 The number of regulators and regulated professions 34 v The default powers of the Privy Council 36 Devolved responsibilities 38 Implementation issues 40 PART 3: MAIN DUTY AND GENERAL FUNCTIONS OF THE REGULATORS 42 The main duty 42 General and principal functions 48 PART 4: GOVERNANCE 52 Strategic role of the General Council 52 Status of the Councils 55 Constitution of the Councils 56 Council committees 63 Powers of delegation 66 PART 5: REGISTERS 68 The purpose of a register 68 Responsibility for maintaining the register 70 Types of registers 72 Types of registration 77 Requirements for registration 78 Processing of registration applications 83 Registration appeals 85 Publication and upkeep of the registers 86 Restoration to the register 89 Content of the registers 91 Protected titles and functions 95 vi PART 6: EDUCATION, CONDUCT AND PRACTICE 99 Overlapping responsibilities 99 Education 102 Guidance 111 Ongoing standards of practice 117 PART 7: FITNESS TO PRACTISE: IMPAIRMENT 121 The fact finding stage 121 The fitness to practise findings 126 Options for reform 127 Provisional view 132 PART 8: FITNESS TO PRACTISE: INVESTIGATION 134 Allegations 134 Initial consideration 139 Investigation 142 Threshold test 148 Disposal of cases 149 Mediation 153 Reviews 155 PART 9: FITNESS TO PRACTISE: ADJUDICATION 158 Article 6 compliance 158 The separation of investigation and adjudication 160 Case management 164 Composition of Panels 165 Conduct of hearings 169 Interim Orders 176 Final sanctions and other disposals 180 vii Review hearings 187 Should regulators be able to reconsider their decisions? 188 Appeals 189 PART 10: THE COUNCIL FOR HEALTHCARE REGULATORY EXCELLENCE 191 Role of the CHRE 191 Governance of the CHRE 193 Functions, powers and duties of the CHRE 196 Complaints about regulatory bodies 198 References to the higher courts 199 PART 11: BUSINESS REGULATION 203 Regulation in a commercial environment 203 Premises regulation 204 Register of bodies corporate 207 Consumer complaints 210 Extending business regulation 211 PART 12: OVERLAP ISSUES 213 Interfaces with other systems 213 Joint working 215 Duties to cooperate 218 PART 13: CROSS BORDER ISSUES 223 Registrants entering from within the EEA 223 Registrants entering from beyond the EEA 226 Regulating outside the UK 227 viii APPENDIX A: PROVISIONAL PROPOSALS AND CONSULTATION QUESTIONS 233 APPENDIX B: MAIN DUTIES OF THE REGULATORS 249 APPENDIX C: STATUTORY COMMITTEES 251 APPENDIX D: PROTECTED TITLES 253 APPENDIX E: PROTECTED FUNCTIONS 257 ix FOREWORD BY THE CHAIRMEN OF THE LAW COMMISSIONS We are delighted to present the first tripartite joint consultation paper, published under the names of each of the three Law Commissions in the UK. Both the Law Commission for England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission were established by the Law Commissions Act 1965. Since the first joint project in 1968 (on exemption clauses in contracts), we have frequently undertaken joint projects. In each such project each stage has been approved by both sets of Commissioners. In Northern Ireland, the function of making law reform proposals was previously undertaken by the Law Reform Advisory Committee. The Northern Ireland Law Commission has been in existence since 2007
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Europe and Eurasia
    E u r o p e a n d E u r a s i a 1 4 European Union Law L u d w i g K r ä m e r ( A ) I n t r o d u c t i o n Th e European Union legal system 1 4 . 0 1 Th e European Union (‘EU’) is a regional integration organisation consisting at present of twenty-seven European Member States that have transferred part of their sovereignty to the EU. Th e EU is based on international treaties – the Treaty on European Union (‘TEU’) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) – and its power to act is laid down in the various provisions of these treaties; there is no ‘common law’ applicable to it. In this regard, the EU is similar to a civil law country. 1 4 . 0 2 A n u m b e r o f s p e c i fi c features distinguish the EU from traditional international organisations. First, the TEU and TFEU address not only the relations between the Member States and the EU insti- tutions, but also establish rights and obligations for individuals. Second, though legislative decisions in climate change matters are taken by majority vote in the European Parliament – whose members are directly elected – and the Council, which consists of the governments of the twenty-seven Member States, the adop- tion of legislation on climate change is only possible on the basis of a proposal by the European Commission. Th e Commission oversees the application of EU law in the Member States, and has the duty to act in the general interest of the EU rather than in the interest of the individual Member States.
    [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]
  • MEDICINES ACT 2003 Chapter 4
    © Copyright Treasury of the Isle of Man Crown Copyright reserved See introductory page for restrictions on copying and reproduction MEDICINES ACT 2003 Chapter 4 Arrangement of sections PART 1 DEALINGS WITH MEDICINAL PRODUCTS 1. Introductory. 2. Restrictions on dealing with medicinal products. 3. Exemptions. 4. General sale of medicinal products. 5. Medicinal products on prescription only. 6. Regulations: general provisions. PART 2 CONSUMER PROTECTION 7. Adulteration of medicinal products. 8. Protection of purchasers of medicinal products. 9. Compliance with published standards. 10. Misleading descriptions etc. 11. Display of information on automatic machines. 12. Offences. PART 3 PROMOTION OF SALES OF MEDICINAL PRODUCTS 13. False or misleading advertisements and representations. 14. Advertisements requiring consent. 15. Regulation of advertisements and representations. 16. Advertisements and representations directed to practitioners. 17. Interpretation. PART 4 ENFORCEMENT 18. Enforcement etc. 19. Rights of entry. 20. Power to inspect, take samples and seize goods and records. 1 Medicines Act 2003 21. Application of sampling procedure to substance or article seized under s. 20. 22. Obstruction etc. 23. Analysis of samples in other cases. 24. Liability to forfeiture. 25. Restrictions on disclosure of information. 26. Contravention due to default of other person. 27. Warranty as defence. 28. Offences in relation to warranties and certificates of analysis. 29. Offences: general. 30. Presumptions. PART 5 VETERINARY MEDICINAL PRODUCTS AND ANIMAL FEEDING STUFFS 31. Veterinary medicinal products. 32. Application of Parts 1 to 4 to veterinary medicinal products. 33. Medicated animal feeding stuffs. 34. Animal feeding stuffs: enforcement. PART 6 PHARMACIES Conduct of retail pharmacy business 35. Retail pharmacy business. 36.
    [Show full text]
  • Defamation and the Internet: Scoping Study
    Law Commission DEFAMATION AND THE INTERNET A Preliminary Investigation Scoping Study No 2 December 2002 The Law Commission was set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 to promote the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Toulson, Chairman Professor Hugh Beale, QC Mr Stuart Bridge Professor Martin Partington, CBE Judge Alan Wilkie, QC The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Sayers and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ. The paper was completed on 8 November 2002. This preliminary investigation is the second of two scoping studies, carried out in response to a request from the Lord Chancellor dated 31 January 2002.1 Comments may be sent to: David Willink Civil Law Development Division Lord Chancellor’s Department Southside 105 Victoria Street London SW1E 6QT email: [email protected] It would be helpful if, where possible, comments could be sent by email or email attachment, in any commonly used format. © Crown copyright 2002 1 The first study, Aspects of Defamation Procedure, was published in May 2002, and is available on the Internet at: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk. THE LAW COMMISSION DEFAMATION AND THE INTERNET: A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION CONTENTS Paragraph Page PART I: INTRODUCTION 1 The issues 1.4 1 ISP liability for other people’s material 1.5 1 The limitation period and online archives 1.6 2 Jurisdiction issues 1.8 2 Contempt of court 1.10 2 Summary of conclusions 1.11 2 Liability of internet service providers 1.12 2 Archives and
    [Show full text]
  • Southampton Student Law Review 2011 Volume 1, Issue 1
    Southampton Student Law Review 2011 volume 1, issue 1 5 Southampton Student Law Review University of Southampton School of Law Published in the United Kingdom By the Southampton Student Law Review School of Law University of Southampton SO17 1BJ In affiliation with the University of Southampton School of Law All rights reserved. Copyright© 2011 University of Southampton. No part of this publication may be reproduced, transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrieval system of any nature, without the prior, express written permission of the Southampton Student Law Review and the author, to whom all requests to reproduce copyright material should be directed, in writing. The views expressed by the contributors are not necessarily those of the Editors of the Southampton Student Law Review. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained in this journal is correct, the Editors do not accept any responsibility for any errors or omissions, or for any resulting consequences. The Editors wish to thank Dr. Oren Ben Dor, Dr. Alun Gibbs and Ms Johanna Hjalmarsson. © 2011 Southampton Student Law Review ISSN 2047 - 1017 This volume should be cited (2011) 1 S.S.L.R. Editorial Board 2011 Editor Harry East Associate Editors Ross W Martin Emma Nottingham Thomas Webber Editorial Board Semande Ayihongbe Aysegul Bugra Dingjing Huang Haedong Jeon Assad Khan Konstantinos Kofopoulos Miao Li Ioanna Magklasi Siven Pillay Rungien Meixian Song Valerio Torti Jingbo Zhang Academic Advisors Dr. Oren Ben Dor Dr. Alun Gibbs Ms Johanna Hjalmarsson The editors wish to thank all members of the University of Southampton School of Law who have helped in the creation of this volume Table of Contents Foreword ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • MOTOR VEHICLE REPORTS Sixth Series/Sixi`Eme S´Erie Recueil De Jurisprudence En Droit Des V´Ehicules A` Moteur
    MOTOR VEHICLE REPORTS Sixth Series/Sixi`eme s´erie Recueil de jurisprudence en droit des v´ehicules a` moteur VOLUME 4 (Cited 4 M.V.R. (6th)) EDITOR-IN-CHIEF/REDACTEUR´ EN CHEF Murray D. Segal, B.A., B.C.L., LL.B. Deputy Attorney General Province of Ontario ASSOCIATE EDITORS/REDACTEURS´ ADJOINTS Justice Rick Libman Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division) Toronto, Ontario John C. Pearson, B.A., LL.B., LL.M. Liz Rice, B.A., LL.B. Director, Crown Operations Barrister & Solicitor Central West Region Toronto, Ontario Ministry of Attorney General Ontario CARSWELL EDITORIAL STAFF/REDACTION´ DE CARSWELL Jeffrey D. Mitchell, B.A., M.A. Director, Editorial Production and Manufacturing Graham B. Peddie, LL.B. Product Development Manager Sharon Yale, LL.B., M.A. Julia Fischer, B.A.(HON.), LL.B. Supervisor, Legal Writing Acting Supervisor, Legal Writing Dionne Chambers, B.A., LL.B. Jim Fitch, B.A., M.A., LL.B. Senior Legal Writer Senior Legal Writer Peggy Gibbons, B.A.(HON.), LL.B. Natasha Major, B.A., LL.L. Senior Legal Writer Senior Legal Writer Anne Simpson, B.A., M.L.S., LL.B. Eden Nameri, B.A., LL.B. Senior Legal Writer Legal Writer Martin-Fran¸cois Parent, LL.B., Jackie Bowman LL.M., DEA (PARIS II) Content Editor Bilingual Legal Writer MOTOR VEHICLE REPORTS, a national series of topical law reports, is Recueil de jurisprudence en droit des v´ehicules a` moteur, une s´erie na- published 12 times per year. Subscription rate $362.00 per bound volume in- tionale de recueils de jurisprudence sp´ecialis´ee, est publi´e 12 fois par ann´ee.
    [Show full text]
  • Marital Rape: an Evaluation of the Patriarchal Injustice in the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013
    Christ University Law Journal, 3, 2 (2014), 97-112 ISSN 2278-4322|doi.org/10.12728/culj.5.6 Marital Rape: An Evaluation of the Patriarchal Injustice in the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 Shivika Choudhary* Abstract The traditional belief that marriage provides a husband with sole rights over his wife, thereby exempting him from any prosecution for raping his wife, has been the justification for denying a woman the right to consent to sexual intercourse in marriage. Unfortunately, this belief has been a source of subjugation and exploitation of women at the behest of their husbands. Despite recommendations to revoke it, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 has retained the marital exception. The purpose of this article is to examine this dichotomy in the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 that punishes rape as such, but does not penalise a husband raping his wife of fifteen years or above. Employing doctrinal method of research, this article analyses the various discrepancies and ambiguities in the Act of 2013 that perpetuate this culture of oppression and violence. Consent is the antithesis to rape. Thus, having examined the need for a married woman‟s right to consent, this note examines the ensuing lacunae that grant legal sanction to child marriages, create an unexplained discrepancy in the punishment for rape, and create variations in the age of consent and the age for availing exception. The recognition of marital rape when spouses live separately and not otherwise appears to be a mysterious distinction. Further, treatment of marital rape * Doctoral Research Scholar (Legal Studies), South Asian University, New Delhi; [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Statute Law Revision Bill 2007 ————————
    ———————— AN BILLE UM ATHCHO´ IRIU´ AN DLI´ REACHTU´ IL 2007 STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL 2007 ———————— Mar a tionscnaı´odh As initiated ———————— ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section 1. Definitions. 2. General statute law revision repeal and saver. 3. Specific repeals. 4. Assignment of short titles. 5. Amendment of Short Titles Act 1896. 6. Amendment of Short Titles Act 1962. 7. Miscellaneous amendments to post-1800 short titles. 8. Evidence of certain early statutes, etc. 9. Savings. 10. Short title and collective citation. SCHEDULE 1 Statutes retained PART 1 Pre-Union Irish Statutes 1169 to 1800 PART 2 Statutes of England 1066 to 1706 PART 3 Statutes of Great Britain 1707 to 1800 PART 4 Statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 1801 to 1922 [No. 5 of 2007] SCHEDULE 2 Statutes Specifically Repealed PART 1 Pre-Union Irish Statutes 1169 to 1800 PART 2 Statutes of England 1066 to 1706 PART 3 Statutes of Great Britain 1707 to 1800 PART 4 Statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 1801 to 1922 ———————— 2 Acts Referred to Bill of Rights 1688 1 Will. & Mary, Sess. 2. c. 2 Documentary Evidence Act 1868 31 & 32 Vict., c. 37 Documentary Evidence Act 1882 45 & 46 Vict., c. 9 Dower Act, 1297 25 Edw. 1, Magna Carta, c. 7 Drainage and Improvement of Lands Supplemental Act (Ireland) (No. 2) 1867 31 & 32 Vict., c. 3 Dublin Hospitals Regulation Act 1856 19 & 20 Vict., c. 110 Evidence Act 1845 8 & 9 Vict., c. 113 Forfeiture Act 1639 15 Chas., 1. c. 3 General Pier and Harbour Act 1861 Amendment Act 1862 25 & 26 Vict., c.
    [Show full text]
  • The Medicines Act 1968 Amended
    1 Medicines Act 1968 (c.67) Warning: This content may not be up-to-date. Please check the Update Status Warning message at the top of the Results within Legislation page Medicines Act 1968 1968 c.67 An Act to make new provision with respect to medicinal products and related matters, and for purposes connected therewith. The Medicines Act 1968 does not apply in relation to veterinary medicinal products. The Medicines (Prohibition of Importation and Possession of Veterinary Drugs Order (Northern Ireland) 1977 continues in force notwithstanding, and the Medicines Act 1968 shall continue to apply in so far as is necessary for the operation of that Order 25th October 1968 Medicines Act 1968 ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Part I ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 Administration .................................................................................................................................... 6 1. Ministers responsible for administration of Act ...................................................................... 6 2. …. ............................................................................................................................................ 6 2A. Establishment of the Commission on Human Medicines ..................................................... 6 3. Functions of the Commission
    [Show full text]
  • Wisconsin's Role in the Uniform Law Commission
    LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE BUREAU Wisconsin’s Role in the Uniform Law Commission: 2021–22 Legislative Session Aaron Gary senior legislative attorney Alex Rosenberg legislative analyst WISCONSIN POLICY PROJECT • April 2021, Volume 4, Number 1 © 2021 Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau One East Main Street, Suite 200, Madison, Wisconsin 53703 http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lrb • 608-504-5801 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA. Introduction The Uniform Law Commission1 (ULC), composed of state delegations and financially supported by the states, crafts legislation for potential enactment by state legislatures. The mission of the ULC is to create uniformity among the states in areas of law in which uniformity is desirable and practicable,2 such as those involving cross-border business transactions or the dissolution of marriages with spouses living in different states. To this end, ULC Commissioners research and draft proposed legislation and the ULC, through deliberative, formal proceedings resembling those of state legislatures, votes to adopt drafted proposals as “final acts” ready for state consideration. The ULC describes its work as providing states with “non-partisan, well-conceived and well-drafted legislation that brings clarity and stability to critical areas of state statutory law.”3 The quintessential uni- form law is the Uniform Commercial Code, developed to facilitate multistate commer- cial transactions by applying uniform rules for all of the transaction’s participants, wher- ever located.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cabinet Manual
    The Cabinet Manual A guide to laws, conventions and rules on the operation of government 1st edition October 2011 The Cabinet Manual A guide to laws, conventions and rules on the operation of government 1st edition October 2011 Foreword by the Prime Minister On entering government I set out, Cabinet has endorsed the Cabinet Manual as an authoritative guide for ministers and officials, with the Deputy Prime Minister, our and I expect everyone working in government to shared desire for a political system be mindful of the guidance it contains. that is looked at with admiration This country has a rich constitution developed around the world and is more through history and practice, and the Cabinet transparent and accountable. Manual is invaluable in recording this and in ensuring that the workings of government are The Cabinet Manual sets out the internal rules far more open and accountable. and procedures under which the Government operates. For the first time the conventions determining how the Government operates are transparently set out in one place. Codifying and publishing these sheds welcome light on how the Government interacts with the other parts of our democratic system. We are currently in the first coalition Government David Cameron for over 60 years. The manual sets out the laws, Prime Minister conventions and rules that do not change from one administration to the next but also how the current coalition Government operates and recent changes to legislation such as the establishment of fixed-term Parliaments. The content of the Cabinet Manual is not party political – it is a record of fact, and I welcome the role that the previous government, select committees and constitutional experts have played in developing it in draft to final publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislation to Encourage Medical Innovation – a Consultation
    Legislation to encourage medical innovation A consultation Prepared by the Department of Health You may re-use the text of this document (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ open-government-licence/ © Crown copyright Published to gov.uk, in PDF format only. www.gov.uk/dh Legislation to encourage medical innovation: A consultation Contents 1 Contents Written Ministerial Statement 2 1. Introduction 3 2. The issue 4 3. The proposed legislation 8 Annexes A: The draft Bill 16 B: Draft explanatory notes 20 C: Draft impact assessment and equality analysis 24 D: List of those alerted to publication of this consultation paper 33 E: Responding to the consultation 36 2 Legislation to encourage medical innovation – A consultation Written Ministerial Statement, 22 November 2013 Medical Innovation (No. 2) Bill The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt): Medical innovation has been vital to the dramatic rise in life expectancy of the last century. This country has a proud heritage of medical innovation from Alexander Fleming and the discovery of penicillin to Sir Peter Mansfield’s enabling of magnetic resonance imaging. The Government should do whatever is needed to remove barriers that prevent innovation which can save and improve lives. We must create a climate where clinical pioneers have the freedom to make breakthroughs in treatment. The Medical Innovation (No. 2) Bill, sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), and the comparable Bill introduced by my noble Friend Lord Saatchi in the other place, correctly identify the threat of litigation as one such barrier.
    [Show full text]