For over 20 years, TheyWorkForYou has been making our democracy more transparent and our politicians more accountable.
We need your support to:
- Hold Power to Account — We highlight what our representatives are doing so they know the public is watching.
- Keep It Free and Accessible — No paywalls because everyone deserves unbiased information about decisions made on their behalf.
- Innovate and Go Further — How politics works is always changing and we're always looking for new opportunites to improve things.
We don't want to wait for a better political system to be given to us – we want to work together to make it happen now.
🗣️ Speeches and Debates
-
Before the noble Baroness sits down, did I understand her to say earlier that the Government intend to make a Statement shortly on the location of the Supreme Court, or was that just wishful thinking?
-
moved Amendment No. 87: Before Clause 15, insert the following new clause— "OATH TO BE TAKEN BY LORD CHANCELLOR The Lord Chancellor shall not be required to take the oath set out in section 4 of the Promissory Oaths Act 1868 (c. 72) (form of judicial oath) but shall take the Lord Chancellor's Oath set out in Schedule (Lord Chancellor's Oath)."
-
This amendment raises another profoundly important issue in public life, if not quite on the same scale as the debate to which we have just listened. It raises the significance of an oath as a form of public undertaking. At present, I believe, subject to correction, that the Lord Chancellor is required to take a judicial oath—that is, the same oath that is taken by other judges; which is...
-
I should welcome that; I think it a most generous response and an entirely appropriate one. It may well be that the judicial oath is not entirely appropriate in the circumstances. On the other hand, some form of formal undertaking would strengthen the position of the new office holder. With those few remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
-
Unusually, bearing in mind the care taken by officials, a printing error in the heading to Amendment No. 80 in the revised third Marshalled List of amendments prints my name not once but twice. I would like to assure the Committee that this does not mean I intend to make two speeches with somebody else intervening. Amendment No. 80 proposes changes in the appointments procedure outlined in...
-
Amendment No. 10 is tabled in my name also. I support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. It seems to me that "respect" is somewhat stronger than "have regard to". These are very fine distinctions and it is highly unlikely that we will find cases before the court in which the Secretary of State of the day has to justify the significance of the word that is used in the statute. On...
-
The response of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, was in two parts, almost audibly so. There were his own extempore reactions for the first three or four minutes and then the Government's prepared response, which he was naturally bound by, but treated with a fairly free hand. There was generosity in those replies. The importance of rule of law is clearly recognised by the Minister,...
-
moved Amendment No. 3: Page 1, line 7, at end insert "and the rule of law"
More of Lord Windlesham's speeches and debates
✍️ Written Questions and Answers
-
asked Her Majesty's Government: When they intend to hold a referendum on whether the United Kingdom should approve the treaty establishing a constitution for the European Union.
-
asked Her Majesty's Government: Which of the 25 member states of the European Union have held referendums to date on the draft European Constitutional Treaty; and with what outcomes.
-
asked Her Majesty's Government: Under what circumstances they will now consider holding a referendum on the draft European Constitutional Treaty.
-
asked Her Majesty's Government: How many national or regional referendums have been held since 1990; on what issues; and with what outcomes.
-
asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether they will publish the concordat between the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales on the framework for the future relationship between the Government and the judiciary.
-
asked Her Majesty's Government: What is the basis for the reported calculation that 80 per cent of the running costs of the proposed Supreme Court would be met by increases in fees paid by litigants in courts throughout the United Kingdom.
-
asked Her Majesty's Government: Which of the main recommendations made in the review of the Criminal Courts in England and Wales by Lord Justice Auld, and of the sentencing framework by John Halliday, have been incorporated in the criminal justice legislation currently before Parliament or in administrative action.
-
asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether the following statutory provisions have yet been brought into force; and, if not, when it is intended they will be: Child Support, Pension and Social Security Act 2000, Section 62; Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, Section 53; and Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, Sections 1 to 11.
More of Lord Windlesham's written questions
