Books by "Great Britain. Parliament. Joint Committee on the Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill"

5 books found

Constitutional reform and renewal

by Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Justice Committee

2009 · The Stationery Office

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.

Parliament's role in conflict decisions

by Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Political and Constitutional Reform Committee

2011 · The Stationery Office

In its report, the Committee recommends that "the Government should as a first step bring forward a draft detailed parliamentary resolution, for consultation with us among others, and for debate and decision by the end of 2011". The Committee points out that "much work in this direction has already been completed, and the process for decision should be relatively swift". The Committee welcomes the Foreign Secretary's commitment to enshrine Parliament's role in law, but says this is likely to be a longer-term project. Concerns around the feasibility of a statutory solution would need to be explored and resolved. The Committee also recommends that Parliament's current role in conflict decisions should be clearly described in the Cabinet Manual. The Manual, when published, is intended to be a single source of information for Ministers, civil servants and others on how government works. The issue of Parliament's role in decisions to commit British forces to armed conflict abroad was an area in which considerable work was carried out before the 2010 general election, particularly in the context of the war in Iraq, but without any concrete result. In its recent report on the constitutional implications of the Cabinet Manual, the committee commented on the "surprising" omission from the draft Manual of any mention of Parliament's role in decisions to commit troops to armed conflict. The issue became topical once again in the context of the ongoing military action in Libya.

Demonstrating respect for rights?

by Great Britain: Parliament: Joint Committee on Human Rights

2010 · The Stationery Office

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)

House of Commons - Defence Committee: UK Armed Forces Personnel and the Legal Framework for Future Operations - HC 931

by Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Defence Committee

2014 · The Stationery Office

UK military personnel as individuals are properly subject to UK and international law wherever they serve and there are processes to ensure scrutiny of their individual behaviour and legal compliance but, in the last ten years, legal judgments in the UK and elsewhere against the MoD have raised a number of legal, ethical and practical questions for the Armed Forces and their conduct of operations. The growing number of such challenges is leading to a feeling of disquiet amongst military personnel and informed commentators about the extent and scale of judicial involvement in military matters.There are two aspects of the use of human rights law in military operations that most concern the Committee: The extraterritorial application of the European Convention on Human Rights has allowed claims in the UK courts from foreign nationals. However, the requirement for full and detailed investigations of every death resulting from an armed conflict is putting a significant burden on the MoD and the Armed Forces. Secondly, there has been a failure of the accepted principle of combat immunity, most recently evidenced in the Supreme Court majority judgment in June 2013 allowing families and military personnel to bring negligence cases against the MoD for injury or death. This seems to us to risk the judicialisation of war and to be incompatible with the accepted contract entered into by Service personnel and the nature of soldiering.

Work of the Committee in 2008-09