🗣️ Speeches and Debates
-
My Lords, in my 48 consecutive years in one or other of the Houses of Parliament I have never known such antagonism as there is at the moment between the judiciary and the executive. For all the sweet talk about the cheeky chappie on the Clapham omnibus, the very fact that one has to have a publicly made concordat between the executive and the judges demonstrates to me how unfortunate for the...
-
My Lords, I do not intend to follow the noble Lord; I shall leave him to the tender mercies of those on my Front Bench who, presumably, will reply to him. As I so rarely trouble your Lordships by speaking or intervening, I should declare an interest. Prior to my retirement in 1984, at the age of 65—I found that I was saying to the judges: "Will you please speak up"—for nearly 40 years I...
-
My Lords, first, I effusively apologise to noble Lords and particularly to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for not being present when he opened the debate. A sequence of unfortunate accidents prevented my arriving in time. I must declare an interest. It seems to be implied by some commentators that opposition on the part of lawyers to forthcoming legislation which we have not yet...
-
My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, in speaking on matters of devolution because I have my own idiosyncratic views that I wish to express about a different constitutional matter. However, I should like to follow him in his welcome to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. I should like to repeat that welcome. The noble and learned Lord will make a...
-
My Lords, despite all the rhetoric and fine words, it is a sad reflection on the Parliament of the United Kingdom--of which we should all be justly proud--that we are forced to consider matters of supreme importance in the context of a statutory instrument, which is unamendable. It is a sad reflection when we read, as we have recently, other debates on trivialities and party-political...
-
My Lords, the noble Lord can make his speech later. I was explaining the argument being made by applicants who will appear before the High Court on Friday for a decision to be made on the matter. They say that there was no fertilisation and that, therefore, Section 1 of the 1990 does not apply. If that is right--some noble Lords may say that it is not; but I may say that it is--the court will...
More of Lord Rawlinson of Ewell's speeches and debates
✍️ Written Questions and Answers
-
asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether the powers of the Attorney-General will be included in the review of constitutional powers.
-
asked Her Majesty's Government: Who were the sponsors or referees that supported the Solicitor-General in her application for a patent as Queen's Counsel.
-
asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether the Solicitor-General has received a certificate to practise advocacy in the High Court; and, if so, when.
-
asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether the Solicitor-General holds any office in the Bar Council.
-
asked Her Majesty's Government: What was the outcome of the proceedings In re Bruno Quintavalle v. The Secretary of State for Health heard in the High Court on 26 January, the same day that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations 2000 were approved.
-
asked Her Majesty's Government: On how many occasions during the calendar year 2000 the Lord Chancellor sat judicially; and for how many days.
-
asked Her Majesty's Government: On how many occasions during the calendar year 2000 (i) the Attorney-General and (ii) the Solicitor-General: (a) visited Northern Ireland and met the Director of Public Prosecutions Northern Ireland; and (b) attended meetings of the Bar Council, apart from the Annual General Meeting of the Bar.
-
asked Her Majesty's Government: On how many occasions during the calendar year 2000 (i) the Attorney-General and (ii) the Solicitor-General: (a) appeared in court to prosecute in criminal proceedings in England and Wales; (b) appeared in court representing the Crown or a Department of State in civil proceedings in England and Wales; (c) attended a Committee of either House of Parliament,...
More of Lord Rawlinson of Ewell's written questions
