The draft Bill and White Paper were included in Cm. 7342-I,II,III (ISBN 9780101734226) which follows the Green paper issued in July 2007, Cm. 7170 (ISBN 9780101717021) and various other Governance of Britain papers
This report examines the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill (contained in Cm. 7342-I,II,III, ISBN 9780101734226) to see how far its provisions put into effect the recommendations of its predecessor Committee's 5th report on the constitutional role of the Attorney General (HC 306, session 2006-07, ISBN 9780215035462). The draft Bill makes no substantial change to the current situation. The Attorney General remains both chief legal adviser to the Government and a Government minister. There is no justification for giving the Attorney General power to halt investigations by the Serious Fraud Office. The Committee favours a statutory duty being placed on ministers to observe the rule of law. The accountability of the post remains limited. Public confidence in the post could be enhanced if it were to become the practice to publish all or most of the Attorney General's advice where it is referred to in support of a political case being put forward by the Government. The problem of being both legal adviser and a minister is difficult to resolve, but the Committee believes that transparency require s separating the political functions from the legal functions. The Draft Bill fails to achieve the purpose given to constitutional reform by the Prime Minister: it gives greater power to the Executive; and it does not add to transparency.
This response to the Public Administration Select Committee is published on the same day as the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill. This Bill is the result of the process of deliberation that started with the publication of the Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill, and adopts a number of the proposals set out there
The Constitutional Reform Bill would abolish the office of the Lord Chancellor; establish a new Supreme Court for the United Kingdom and abolish the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords; establish a Judicial Appointments Commission for England and Wales; and introduce new arrangements for judicial discipline. During the Second Reading Debate it was decided that, because there had been no opportunity for pre legislative scrutiny, the Bill should be examined by a Select Committee rather than a Committee of the Whole House. In this report the clauses that raise issues are identified and the disagreements within the Committees are presented. Although over 400 amendments are made they do not affect the substance of the Bill, even though opinion was divided on two core issues: the abolition of the office of the Lord Chancellor and the establishment of a Supreme Court.
In this report the Public Administration Select Committee makes constructive suggestions for improving the Government's proposals for put forward in the March 2008 white paper on constitutional renewal and the accompanying draft bill. At present many important ministerial powers - the 'prerogative powers' may be excercised without parliamentary approval. The Committee's aim here is to open up the secret powers of the Executive to parliamentary scrutiny and approval. The proposals for the Civil Service were welcomed and it is felt that the purpose of legislation would be to protect the core values of integrity, honesty, objectivity, impartiality - and its key characteristics - recruitment on merit and the ability to serve governments from across the political spectrum. Suggestions to strengthen the draft further in this respect were made. The Government's proposals on the other prerogative powers were felt to be disappointingly limited and felt to contain loopholes which would allow the Exectuive to bypass Parliament at their discretion. The Committee found that the Government's draft resolution on war-making powers leaves too much discretion in the hands of the Prime Minister and describe the need to seek retrospective approval for urgent military operations as the price of democracy. The Committee also found, in relation to the making of treaties, that the Government's proposed Parliamentary safeguard could be ignored at will. They also urge swift progress on legislation on the procedures for issueing passports and a wider review of the prerogative powers.
The Committee recognises the appetite in many quarters for fundamental constitutional change and welcomes the Government's renewed focus on constitutional reform and renewal in response to this. It is surprised by the limited provisions in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, and fears that this may be a missed opportunity to make progress in some areas of reform. Any programme introducing fundamental change should be carefully constructed and aimed at a coherent outcome taking into account the widest possible range of views and allowing sufficient time for consideration and response. The Government's approach to constitutional reform has been ad hoc and piecemeal. Reform must underpinned by a set of constitutional principles based on a proper understanding of the position and role of Parliament in relation to the other institutions of state. The report covers the Parliamentary Standards Bill, House of Lords reform, a written constitution, stronger powers to local government, electoral reform, young people's engagement with politics, freedom of information. The Committee cautions that inappropriate handling of bills and proposals for reform specifically designed to restore public trust may further undermine that trust.
Constitutional reform and Renewal : Parliamentary Standards Bill, seventh report of session 2008-09, report, together with formal minutes, oral and written Evidence
The draft Bill and White Paper were included in Cm. 7342-I,II,III (ISBN 9780101734226) which follows the Green paper issued in July 2007, Cm. 7170 (ISBN 9780101717021) and various other Governance of Britain papers
follow-up, Government response to the Committee's twenty-second report of session 2008-09, sixth report of session 2009-10, report, together with formal minutes and written evidence
follow-up, Government response to the Committee's twenty-second report of session 2008-09, sixth report of session 2009-10, report, together with formal minutes and written evidence
Government response to HL 141/ 522, session 2008-09 (ISBN 9780108444777) which was a follow up to HL 47-I/HC 320-I, session 2008-09 (ISBN 9780104014530)
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill; Video Recordings Bill, fourth report of session 2009-10, report, together with formal minutes and written evidence
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill; Video Recordings Bill, fourth report of session 2009-10, report, together with formal minutes and written evidence
The Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill was re-introduced in the House of Commons on 19 November 2009 and the Committee welcomes a number of aspects of the Bill which is implementing some of the commitments made by the Prime Minister in his Governance of Britain statement in July 2007. But the Committee considers there are a number of significant omissions from the Bill including in relation to judicial appointments, parliamentary scrutiny of security and intelligence matters, and the restrictive judicial interpretation of the meaning of public function in the Human Rights Act. They recommend amendments relating to the latter two points. They also look at Protest around Parliament, Ratification of Treaties and Right to a fair hearing and access to a court in the determination of civil rights.The Video Recordings Bill was introduced into the House of Commons on 15 December 2009 and is a fast track piece of legislation which repeals and revives the provisions of the Video Recordings Act 1984 in order to enable them to be notified to the European Commission under the Technical Standards Directive and so secure its enforceability. The Committee considers the human rights issues raised by this Bill should be subjected to parliamentary scrutiny. However as the 1984 Act, serves as an important child protection purpose, that are currently unenforceable, the Committee accepts the need for fast tracking this legislation and does not propose to further scrutinise this Bill.
The history of reform of the House of Lords has a long history since the Parliament Act 1911, and since the House of Lords Act 1999 removed the right of all but 92 hereditary peers to sit in the Lords, there has been a number of initiatives to further the debate on reform. The latest proposals are contained in the draft Bill (Cm. 8077, ISBN 9780101807722) published in May 2011, which was referred to the Joint Committee. In this report the Joint Committee acknowledges the controversial aspects of certain of the proposals and the members of the Committee reflect wider differences of opinion, many of the report's recommendations being decided by a majority. The majority supports the need for an electoral mandate, provided the House has commensurate powers. The current functions and role would continue, but the House would probably seek to be more assertive, to an extent that cannot be predicted. The Committee recommends a House of 450 members, 80% elected on a system of Single Transferable Voting (preferably that used in New South Wales, not the one proposed in the Bill) for a 15 year term.The main sections of the report cover: functions, role, primacy of the Commons and conventions; electoral system, size, voting system and constituencies; appointments, bishops and ministers; transition, salaries, IPSA, disqualification. The Committee recommends that, in view of the significance of the constitutional change, the Government should submit the decision to a referendum.
The Terrorism Act 2000 (Remedial) Order 2011, an urgent remedial order concerning exceptional counter-terrorism powers to stop and search without reasonable suspicion was made by the Home Secretary on 17 March 2011 and came into force on 18 March 2011. The purpose of the Order is to remove the incompatibility of the current statutory powers to stop and search without reasonable suspicion (in sections 44 to 46 of the Terrorism Act 2000) with the right to respect the private life in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("ECHR"). The Joint Committee on Human Rights accepts the necessity of introducing a replacement stop and search power and agree with the Government there are compelling reasons for using the remedial order procedure. It does provide for much greater parliamentary scrutiny, but the Committee does recommend that the Government provides more detailed evidence of the sorts of circumstances in which the police have experienced the existence of an operational gap in the absence of a power to stop and search. Without such detailed scrutiny it is difficult for the Committee to reach a view as to the appropriateness of proceeding by urgent remedial order. The Committee also recommends that the Order be replaced with a new Order modifying the provisions and removing the incompatibility identified by the ECHR.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights concludes that the current statutory framework does not provide effective protection for human rights. The rights most often relevant to extradition are: prohibition of torture; fair trial; liberty and security; private and family life; and prohibition of discrimination. The Committee calls on the Government to spell out detailed safeguards in the statutory framework. Parliament should be asked to commence the "most appropriate forum" safeguard in the Police and Criminal Justice Act 2006 and that a requirement for the requesting country to show a prima facie case or similarly robust evidential threshold should be introduced in extradition cases. The most appropriate forum safeguard would require the judge to consider whether it is in the interests of justice for the individual to be tried in the requesting country - and to refuse the extradition request if it is not. The committee also calls for negotiated changes to the European Arrest Warrant, a review of the provision of legal representation. The committee also concludes that the power of the Secretary of State to refuse extradition to non-EU countries should not be extended. The powers of the judge in an extradition case should instead ensure adequate protection of rights.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.