DOCSLIB.ORG

Bingham Devolution Report Prelims 13/5/15 09:38 Page I

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bingham Devolution Report Prelims 13/5/15 09:38 Page I Bingham Devolution Report Prelims 13/5/15 09:38 Page i A Constitutional Crossroads: Ways Forward for the United Kingdom Bingham Devolution Report Prelims 13/5/15 09:38 Page ii Bingham Devolution Report Prelims 13/5/15 12:15 Page iii A Constitutional Crossroads Ways Forward for the United Kingdom May 2015 Bingham Devolution Report Prelims 13/5/15 09:38 Page iv Published and distributed by The British Institute of International and Comparative Law Charles Clore House, 17 Russell Square, London WC1B 5JP © BIICL 2015 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A Catalogue record of this book is available from the British Library All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in any restricted system of any nature without the written permission of the copyright holder, application for which should be addressed to the distributor. Such written permission must also be obtained before any part of this publication is stored in a retrieval system of any nature. Typeset by Cambrian Typesetters Camberley, Surrey Printed in Great Britain by Polestar Wheatons Ltd Cover design by Nick Clarke Bingham Devolution Report Prelims 13/5/15 09:38 Page v THIS REVIEW WAS UNDERTAKEN BETWEEN DECEMBER 2014 AND MAY 2015 BY A COMMISSION* CONSISTING OF: PROFESSOR SIR JEFFREY JOWELL KCMG QC (Chair), Director of the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law PROFESSOR LINDA COLLEY, Shelby MC Davis 1958 Professor of History at Princeton University GERALD HOLTHAM, Managing Partner at Cadwyn Capital LLP. Cardiff Business School PROFESSOR JOHN KAY, Visiting Fellow, Nuffield College, Oxford SIR MAURICE KAY, Former Vice President of the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal PROFESSOR MONICA MCWILLIAMS, Professor, Transitional Justice Institute, University of Ulster PROFESSOR EMERITA ELIZABETH MEEHAN, Professor at the School of Politics and International Relations at University College, Dublin PHILIP STEPHENS, Chief political commentator, Financial Times PROFESSOR ADAM TOMKINS, (Rapporteur) Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow PROFESSOR TONY TRAVERS, Director of British Government at the London School of Economics ALAN TRENCH, (Advisor) Devolution expert, author of ‘Devolution Matters’ blog Committee Secretary: SANDRA HOMEWOOD Assistance is acknowledged from conversations with: Toby Fenwick, Professor Robert Hazell, Lord Lester QC, Lord Lexden and Professor Richard Rawlings. And for administrative assistance from Charlotte Lazarus. * For fuller biographies see Chapter 8. Bingham Devolution Report Prelims 13/5/15 09:38 Page vi Bingham Devolution Report Prelims 13/5/15 09:38 Page vii CONTENTS Foreword ix Executive summary of main recommendations xiii 1. Introduction: the development of devolution 1 1.1 Scotland 1 1.2 Wales 4 1.3 Northern Ireland 6 1.4 Implementing the new proposals 7 2. The architecture of the union state 9 2.1 Inter-governmental machinery 9 2.2 Whitehall and the civil service 11 3. Devolution and federalism 13 3.1 Permanence 14 3.2 Secession 15 3.3 Judicial review 15 3.4 Shared rule and solidarity 16 3.5 A reformed Upper House 17 3.6 England 17 3.7 The content of devolution and the extent of diversity 18 4. A Charter of Union 19 4.1 Principles of union constitutionalism 20 4.2 The principle of consent and secession referendums 22 5. The English question 25 5.1 Representation: English votes for English laws? 26 5.2 Making English votes for English laws work 29 5.3 Devolution within England 31 6. Funding devolved governments: fiscal devolution, public services and the ‘social union’ 35 6.1 Social solidarity in the Union 35 6.2 Principles for funding devolution 36 6.3 The block grant and the working of the Barnett formula 40 6.4 Tax devolution and its implications 41 6.5 The block grant and fiscal devolution 43 6.6 England within the Union: the implications of English choices for the rest of the UK 45 6.7 How to reform the system 46 7. Chronological summary of conclusions and recommendations 49 8. Biographies of Commission Members 55 Appendix: the case law on devolution 59 vii Bingham Devolution Report Prelims 13/5/15 09:38 Page viii Bingham Devolution Report Prelims 13/5/15 09:38 Page ix FOREWORD The United Kingdom has reached a constitutional support. A settlement is therefore urgent to crossroads. Scotland’s vote last September to create a sense of security among our own remain part of the Union was made in the light of citizens, who need to comprehend the basic an offer by political leaders of an unprecedented rules of our domestic territorial arrangements degree of home rule. Much greater transfer of and to know that they are “coherent, stable and power to the Scottish Parliament will transform workable”.2 A settlement is urgent too because relationships between the four parts or nations1 the present lack of clarity conveys an impression of the Union. The urgent task of the new United of instability which can harm our dealings with Kingdom government is to craft a renewed the outside world. settlement that at once meets the pledges made to Scotland; maintains the essential fabric of the The late Lord Bingham, commenting on our Union; and is fair to all nations of the Union in a lack of a codified constitution, said that spirit of mutual respect. To say this will be not be “constitutionally speaking, we now find ourselves easy is an understatement. in a trackless desert without map or compass”. He was therefore attracted to the notion of a The informal, asymmetric nature of the UK sparely drawn constitution, dealing with a few constitution does not lend itself to balanced, neat governing principles regarded as fundamental adjustments. Nor does England’s preponderance and indispensable. This would enable “any within the Union. Any new settlement will citizen to ascertain the cardinal rules regulating necessarily be complex. It will be impossible to the government of the state of which he or she banish all inconsistencies and anomalies. The is a member” and also inculcate a constitutional Union has great advantages for reasons of awareness which is particularly important in the security, economic efficiency and social solidarity increasingly polyglot, multi-cultural, religiously as well as shared history and culture. Yet there diverse, plural society that this country has are also great virtues in decentralised sources become3. of governance. We believe that in the context of devolution, This review seeks to assist the mapping of a path a written constitution would most securely to a new settlement for the UK government. provide the advantage of clear ground-rules to Although the devolution arrangements are often serve as a framework for our territorial referred to as a ‘settlement’, this is far from the arrangements and to secure their permanence. case and there is now a growing sense of unease Its realisation however, will, rightly, take time. that the Union is at risk of becoming unstuck. In the meantime, because the issue is urgent, Indeed, in 2014, the United Kingdom was on the we suggest that we would benefit now from a verge of breaking up on the authority of an inter- Charter of Union which would lay down the government arrangement without the proper underlying principles of the UK’s territorial underpinning of parliamentary enactment or the constitution and of devolution within it, from consent of the other constituent nations. Contrast which flow a number of changes to existing the position in most federal countries, where a institutional arrangements and practices, written constitution provides with clarity that including financial arrangements under the transfers of power can be achieved, if at all, only existing ‘Barnett formula’ (from which, we with unanimity or a high threshold of popular suggest too, we should progressively depart). 1 We know that there are reservations in some quarters 2 The words of Lord Hope, Deputy President of the UK about describing each of England, Scotland, Wales and Supreme Court, in Imperial Tobacco v Lord Advocate [2012] Northern Ireland as ‘nations’ but, for ease, this is the UKSC 61, 2013 SC (UKSC) 153, at [13]. nomenclature we adopt throughout this review. 3 Tom Bingham, Lives in the Law (OUP, 2011), chap.6. ix Bingham Devolution Report Prelims 13/5/15 09:38 Page x FOREWORD This review (carried out over five months, In Chapter 3, we set devolution in the United and inevitably selective) examines devolution, Kingdom in the context of an understanding of the UK’s union state, and our territorial federalism. We explore the similarities between constitution in the context of the United Kingdom devolution and federalism and we note where they as a whole. UK devolution has been undertaken in may be contrasted with one another. We note that a piecemeal fashion and has only occasionally any degree of permanence of our devolved been viewed in the round – both in the light of the structure requires a written constitution and UK’s fundamental constitutional values (such as propose other ways to enhance a combination of the rule of law, the protection of individual ‘shared rule’ and ‘home rule’. liberties and human rights, and representative government) and in the light of how each In Chapter 4, we identify the constitutional constituent nation relates constitutionally to principles which, we argue, should shape our each other and to the centre, and the interacting understanding of the UK’s territorial state. points of influence between them. The House of We examine the idea of union and ask what Lords Constitution Committee stated in a report animates it: from a range of sources we identify published in March 2015 that they were a series of ‘principles of union constitutionalism’ “astonished that the UK Government do [sic] not which, we argue, should now be codified in a new appear to have considered the wider implications Charter of Union to help us understand the state for the United Kingdom of the proposals” agreed of the union and its likely future.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Implementing the Scotland Act 2012. an Update
    Implementing the Scotland Act 2012 An update Prepared by Audit Scotland December 2015 Auditor General for Scotland The Auditor General’s role is to: • appoint auditors to Scotland’s central government and NHS bodies • examine how public bodies spend public money • help them to manage their finances to the highest standards • check whether they achieve value for money. The Auditor General is independent and reports to the Scottish Parliament on the performance of: • directorates of the Scottish Government • government agencies, eg the Scottish Prison Service, Historic Scotland • NHS bodies • further education colleges • Scottish Water • NDPBs and others, eg Scottish Police Authority, Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. You can find out more about the work of the Auditor General on our website: www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/about/ags Audit Scotland is a statutory body set up in April 2000 under the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000. We help the Auditor General for Scotland and the Accounts Commission check that organisations spending public money use it properly, efficiently and effectively. Implementing the Scotland Act 2012: An update | 3 Contents Summary 4 Part 1. Devolved taxes 8 Part 2. Scottish rate of income tax 16 Part 3. Financial management and reporting 20 Endnotes 26 Appendix. Audit methodology 27 4 | Summary Key messages 1 Revenue Scotland successfully implemented the two devolved taxes on time. The IT system and people needed to collect and manage the taxes were in place by the time the taxes were introduced. It cost £5.5 million to implement the devolved taxes, £1.2 million more than originally estimated, owing mainly to the need for additional staff in the set-up phase.
    [Show full text]
  • Fourth Annual Report on the Implementation of the Scotland Act 2016
    FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SCOTLAND ACT 2016 EIGHTH ANNUAL REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION OF PART 3 (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) OF THE SCOTLAND ACT 2012 Fourth Annual Report on the Implementation of the Scotland Act 2016 Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Scotland by Command of Her Majesty April 2020 Eighth Annual Report on the Implementation and Operation of Part 3 (Financial Provisions) of the Scotland Act 2012 Presented to Parliament pursuant to section 33(1)(b) of the Scotland Act 2012 Presented to the Scottish Parliament pursuant to section 33(1)(c) of the Scotland Act 2012 April 2020 © Crown copyright [2020] This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/official-documents. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected]. ISBN 978-1-5286-1834-2 CCS0320342228 04/20 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office CONTENTS Chapter Page Foreword 1 Part 1: Scotland Act 2016 2 1. Introduction 3 2. Implementation Progress 5 3. Income Tax 13 4. Other tax powers and fiscal provisions 17 5. Borrowing powers 19 6.
    [Show full text]
  • AGREEMENT at ST ANDREWS Over the Past Three Days in St Andrews
    AGREEMENT AT ST ANDREWS Over the past three days in St Andrews we have engaged intensively with the Northern Ireland political parties with a view to achieving the goal we set in Armagh in April, which is shared by all the parties and the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland: the restoration of the political institutions. We believe that the transformation brought about by the ending of the IRA's campaign provides the basis for a political settlement. 2. Our discussions have been focused on achieving full and effective operation of the political institutions. When we arrived in Scotland a limited number of outstanding issues remained to be resolved, including support for and devolution of policing and the criminal justice system, changes to the operation of the Agreement institutions, and certain other matters raised by the parties or flowing from the Preparation for Government Committee. The two Governments now believe that the agreement we are publishing today clears the way to restoration. Power sharing and the political institutions 3. Both Governments remain fully committed to the fundamental principles of the Agreement: consent for constitutional change, commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, stable inclusive partnership government, a balanced institutional accommodation of the key relationships within Northern Ireland, between North and South and within these islands, and for equality and human rights at the heart of the new dispensation in Northern Ireland. All parties to this agreement need to be wholeheartedly and publicly committed, in good faith and in a spirit of genuine partnership, to the full operation of stable power-sharing Government and the North-South and East-West arrangements.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1 Halsbury's Laws of England (3) RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
    Page 1 Halsbury's Laws of England (3) RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CROWN AND THE JUDICIARY 133. The monarch as the source of justice. The constitutional status of the judiciary is underpinned by its origins in the royal prerogative and its legal relationship with the Crown, dating from the medieval period when the prerogatives were exercised by the monarch personally. By virtue of the prerogative the monarch is the source and fountain of justice, and all jurisdiction is derived from her1. Hence, in legal contemplation, the Sovereign's Majesty is deemed always to be present in court2 and, by the terms of the coronation oath and by the maxims of the common law, as also by the ancient charters and statutes confirming the liberties of the subject, the monarch is bound to cause law and justice in mercy to be administered in all judgments3. This is, however, now a purely impersonal conception, for the monarch cannot personally execute any office relating to the administration of justice4 nor effect an arrest5. 1 Bac Abr, Prerogative, D1: see COURTS AND TRIBUNALS VOL 24 (2010) PARA 609. 2 1 Bl Com (14th Edn) 269. 3 As to the duty to cause law and justice to be executed see PARA 36 head (2). 4 2 Co Inst 187; 4 Co Inst 71; Prohibitions del Roy (1607) 12 Co Rep 63. James I is said to have endeavoured to revive the ancient practice of sitting in court, but was informed by the judges that he could not deliver an opinion: Prohibitions del Roy (1607) 12 Co Rep 63; see 3 Stephen's Commentaries (4th Edn) 357n.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Explanatory Memorandum to the Land Transaction Tax (Transitional
    Explanatory Memorandum to The Land Transaction Tax (Transitional Provisions) (Wales) Regulations 2018 This Explanatory Memorandum has been prepared by the Office of the First Minister and Cabinet Office of the Welsh Government and is laid before the National Assembly for Wales in conjunction with the above subordinate legislation and in accordance with Standing Order 27.1. Cabinet Secretary’s Declaration In my view, this Explanatory Memorandum gives a fair and reasonable view of the expected impact of the Land Transaction Tax (Transitional Provisions) (Wales) Regulations 2018. I am satisfied that the benefits justify the likely costs. Mark Drakeford AM – Cabinet Secretary for Finance 8 January 2018 1 1. Description 1.1 These Regulations make transitional provisions in respect of the introduction of land transaction tax (“LTT”) in Wales by the Land Transaction Tax and Anti-avoidance of Devolved Taxes (Wales) Act 2017 (“the LTTA Act”). The provisions ensure that transactions which take place on or after 1 April 2018 receive treatment which is consistent, meaning that transactions are not taxed twice under LTT and Stamp Duty Land Tax (“SDLT”), or not taxed at all. The Regulations also ensure that arrangements commenced prior to 1 April 2018 and for which certain reliefs (which exist in both regimes) were claimed will continue to be relieved under LTT (subject to certain conditions being met). The Regulations will also provide for transitional rules for the purposes of determining whether a transaction completed on or before 26 November 2018 is a higher rates residential property transaction where a person‘s main residence is being replaced.
    [Show full text]
  • Inquiry Into the Implementation of the Wales Act 2014 and Operation of the Fiscal Framework
    Welsh Parliament Finance Committee Inquiry into the implementation of the Wales Act 2014 and operation of the Fiscal Framework February 2021 www.senedd.wales The Welsh Parliament is the democratically elected body that represents the interests of Wales and its people. Commonly known as the Senedd, it makes laws for Wales, agrees Welsh taxes and holds the Welsh Government to account. An electronic copy of this document can be found on the Welsh Parliament website: www.senedd.wales/SeneddFinance Copies of this document can also be obtained in accessible formats including Braille, large print, audio or hard copy from: Finance Committee Welsh Parliament Cardiff Bay CF99 1SN Tel: 0300 200 6565 Email: [email protected] Twitter: @SeneddFinance © Senedd Commission Copyright 2020 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 Senedd Commission and the title of the document specified. Welsh Parliament Finance Committee Inquiry into the implementation of the Wales Act 2014 and operation of the Fiscal Framework February 2021 www.senedd.wales About the Committee The Committee was established on 22 June 2016. Its remit can be found at: www.senedd.wales/SeneddFinance Committee Chair: Llyr Gruffydd MS Plaid Cymru Current Committee membership: Alun Davies MS Siân Gwenllian MS Welsh Labour Plaid Cymru Mike Hedges MS Mark Isherwood MS Welsh Labour Welsh Conservatives Mark Reckless MS Rhianon Passmore MS Abolish the Welsh Assembly Welsh Labour Party The following Member attended as a substitute during this inquiry.
    [Show full text]
  • Cooperation Programmes Under the European Territorial Cooperation Goal
    Cooperation programmes under the European territorial cooperation goal CCI 2014TC16RFPC001 Title Ireland-United Kingdom (PEACE) Version 1.2 First year 2014 Last year 2020 Eligible from 01-Jan-2014 Eligible until 31-Dec-2023 EC decision number EC decision date MS amending decision number MS amending decision date MS amending decision entry into force date NUTS regions covered by IE011 - Border the cooperation UKN01 - Belfast programme UKN02 - Outer Belfast UKN03 - East of Northern Ireland UKN04 - North of Northern Ireland UKN05 - West and South of Northern Ireland EN EN 1. STRATEGY FOR THE COOPERATION PROGRAMME’S CONTRIBUTION TO THE UNION STRATEGY FOR SMART, SUSTAINABLE AND INCLUSIVE GROWTH AND THE ACHIEVEMENT OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL COHESION 1.1 Strategy for the cooperation programme’s contribution to the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and to the achievement of economic, social and territorial cohesion 1.1.1 Description of the cooperation programme’s strategy for contributing to the delivery of the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and for achieving economic, social and territorial cohesion. Introduction The EU PEACE Programmes are distinctive initiatives of the European Union to support peace and reconciliation in the programme area. The first PEACE Programme was a direct result of the European Union's desire to make a positive response to the opportunities presented by developments in the Northern Ireland peace process during 1994, especially the announcements of the cessation of violence by the main republican and loyalist paramilitary organisations. The cessation came after 25 years of violent conflict during which over 3,500 were killed and 37,000 injured.
    [Show full text]
  • The Good Friday Agreement – an Overview
    The Good Friday Agreement – An Overview June 2013 2 The Good Friday Agreement – An Overview June 2013 June 2013 3 Published by Democratic Progress Institute 11 Guilford Street London WC1N 1DH United Kingdom www.democraticprogress.org [email protected] +44 (0)203 206 9939 First published, 2013 ISBN: 978-1-905592-ISBN © DPI – Democratic Progress Institute, 2013 DPI – Democratic Progress Institute is a charity registered in England and Wales. Registered Charity No. 1037236. Registered Company No. 2922108. This publication is copyright, but may be reproduced by any method without fee or prior permission for teaching purposes, but not for resale. For copying in any other circumstances, prior written permission must be obtained from the publisher, and a fee may be payable.be obtained from the publisher, and a fee may be payable 4 The Good Friday Agreement – An Overview Abstract For decades, resolving the Northern Ireland conflict has been of primary concern for the conflicting parties within Northern Ireland, as well as for the British and Irish Governments. Adopted in 1998, the Good Friday Agreement has managed to curb hostilities, though sporadic violence still occurs and antagonism remains pervasive between many Nationalists and Unionists. Strong political bargaining through back-channel negotiations and facilitation from international and third-party interlocutors all contributed to what is today referred to as Northern Ireland’s peace process and the resulting Good Friday Agreement. Although the Northern Ireland peace process and the Good Friday Agreement are often touted as a model of conflict resolution for other intractable conflicts in the world, the implementation of the Agreement has proven to be challenging.
    [Show full text]
  • Welfare Reform (Further Provision) (Scotland) Act 2012
    Welfare Reform (Further Provision) (Scotland) Act 2012 Annual Report – 2016 June 2016 Welfare Reform (Further Provision) (Scotland) Act 2012 Annual Report – 2016 Laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Ministers under section 4(2) of the Welfare Reform (Further Provision) (Scotland) Act 2012 30 June 2016 SG/2016/99 Executive Summary The Welfare Reform (Further Provision) (Scotland) Act 2012 tasks the Scottish Government with producing an Annual Report on the impacts of the UK Welfare Reform Act 2012 (the Act) on the people of Scotland. Changes in UK welfare policy since the Act was passed have been detailed in previous annual reports. This is the third annual report (an initial report was also published in 2013), and the first to be published since the passing of the Scotland Act 2016, which will devolve a range of disability benefits, carer benefits and components of the Regulated Social Fund to Scotland, as well as powers to create new devolved benefits and top-up existing reserved benefits. Impacts of the Welfare Reform Act In June 2016, Universal Credit (UC) was available in all jobcentres in Scotland for single jobseekers without children. The most recent data for May 2016 show that there are around 28,100 households in Scotland claiming UC. Measures announced in the Summer Budget 2015 have reduced the relative generosity of UC for in-work claimants by reducing the Work Allowances. Once fully rolled out, UC is expected to have mixed financial impacts, with „winners‟ and „losers‟ in terms of benefit entitlement. The Scottish Government will have the power to make certain administrative changes to UC.
    [Show full text]
  • The Barnett Formula
    BRIEFING PAPER Number 7386, 28 May 2021 By Matthew Keep The Barnett formula Inside: 1. The formula 2. Issues 3. Recent fiscal devolution www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary Number 7386, 28 May 2021 2 Contents Summary 3 1. The formula 4 1.1 Introduction 4 1.2 How does the formula work? 5 Comparability percentage 5 Population proportions 6 Examples 7 1.3 UK Government spending announced outside of a spending review 7 1.4 A block grant floor for Wales 8 1.5 A non-statutory formula 9 1.6 Government transparency 9 1.7 Formula bypass 10 1.8 Origins 10 2. Issues 11 2.1 A needs-based formula 11 2.2 Equity 12 2.3 Barnett squeeze 13 3. Recent fiscal devolution 16 3.1 Block grant adjustment 16 Indexing BGAs in Scotland 17 Indexing BGAs in Wales 18 BGA in Northern Ireland 18 Further information about fiscal devolution 20 3.2 Recent legislation and Barnett 21 Appendix 1. Calculating the Home Office’s comparability percentage 24 Appendix 2. Calculating Scotland’s Barnett consequentials for 2018/19 25 Cover page image copyright: DIL_1336 by Switchology. Licensed under CC BY 2.0 / image cropped. 3 The Barnett formula Summary The devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Details of how the receive grants from the UK Government that fund most of their devolved spending. The largest such grant is the ‘block grant’. administrations are funded, including the The Barnett formula calculates the annual change in the block grant.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Government Plan
    United States Department of State Open Government Plan September 2016 OPEN GOVERNMENT PLAN U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 4 New and Expanded Initiatives ................................................................................................................ 6 Open Data ................................................................................................................................... 6 Proactive Disclosures .................................................................................................................. 9 Privacy ...................................................................................................................................... 10 Whistleblower Protection...........................................................................................................11 Websites .................................................................................................................................... 12 Open Innovation Methods......................................................................................................... 13 Access to Scientific Data and Publications ............................................................................... 14 Open Source
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Devolution After the Scottish Referendum
    House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee The future of devolution after the Scottish referendum Eleventh Report of Session 2014–15 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 23 March 2015 HC 700 Published on 29 March 2015 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee Mr Graham Allen MP (Labour, Nottingham North) (Chair) Mr Christopher Chope MP (Conservative, Christchurch) Tracey Crouch MP (Conservative, Chatham and Aylesford) Mark Durkan MP (Social Democratic & Labour Party, Foyle) Paul Flynn MP (Labour, Newport West) Duncan Hames MP (Liberal Democrat, Chippenham) Fabian Hamilton MP (Labour, Leeds North East) David Morris MP (Conservative, Morecambe and Lunesdale) Robert Neill MP (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst) Chris Ruane MP (Labour, Vale of Clwyd) Mr Andrew Turner MP (Conservative, Isle of Wight) The following Members were also members of the Committee during the Parliament: Mr Jeremy Browne MP (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane) Sheila Gilmore MP (Labour, Edinburgh East) Andrew Griffiths MP (Conservative, Burton) Simon Hart MP (Conservative, Camarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) Tristram Hunt MP (Labour, Stoke on Trent Central) Mrs Eleanor Laing MP (Conservative, Epping Forest) Yasmin Qureshi MP (Labour, Bolton South East) Stephen Williams MP (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West) Powers The Committee’s powers are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in Temporary Standing Order (Political and Constitutional Reform Committee). These are available on the Internet via www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmstords.htm. Publication Committee reports are published on the Committee’s website at www.parliament.uk/PCRC-publications and by The Stationery Office by Order of the House.
    [Show full text]