Skip to main content

1-20 of 2,041 results for subject:"Supreme Court"

Session X
2010-12

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

More

Primary member

More

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to amend data protection legislation to enable the transcripts of House of Lords, Privy Council and Supreme Court Written Cases to be deposited by the Supreme Court with Lincoln’s Inn library.

Asked by
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Date
1 May 2012
Reference
16846; 736 c443WA
House
House of Lords

I add my support for the Lords amendment. It makes sense. We have to realise that drivers of all kinds cope with different speed limits, even within one county. This Bill has had a long journey, but there has also been a long journey for those of us who, like...

Member
Anne McGuire (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 April 2012
Reference
543 c1179
House
House of Commons

I am very happy to support this group of Lords amendments and, indeed, the provisions in the Bill. I must confess that this is an issue on which I have changed my mind. On Second Reading, I had concerns about creating different speed limits north and south of the border....

Member
Iain Stewart (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 April 2012
Reference
543 c1178-9
House
House of Commons

Lords amendments 12 to 16 would amend clauses 25 and 26 to devolve completely to the Scottish Parliament all aspects in relation to speed limits on all roads in Scotland. They follow the recommendation of the Calman commission and resolve the ambiguities and uncertainties that might have ensued from a...

Member
William Bain (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 April 2012
Reference
543 c1178
House
House of Commons

Scotland Bill. Consideration of Lords amendments. Lords amendments agreed to.

Lead member
David Mundell
Department
Scotland Office
Type
Debates on bills
Date
26 April 2012
Reference
543 c1132-79
House
House of Commons

There has been much debate about the role of the Lord Advocate and the Supreme Court in Scottish criminal proceedings. That debate has come a long way, and there is now agreement that the Supreme Court should have a role in relation to the European convention on human rights and...

Member
David Mundell (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 April 2012
Reference
543 c1171-2
House
House of Commons

I welcome that part of the group, but will the Minister make it absolutely clear—I believe he is just about to do so—that what we are seeing with these changes is an ending of the Supreme Court's ability to substitute its decision for that of the High Court?

Member
Stewart Hosie (Scottish National Party)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 April 2012
Reference
543 c1172
House
House of Commons

I absolutely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. The remarks made by the First Minister about members of the Supreme Court were beneath him; they demeaned his office and were wholly inappropriate.

Member
David Mundell (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 April 2012
Reference
543 c1172
House
House of Commons

Just for clarification, were the First Minister's comments successful, in that his criticisms resulted in these amendments? If so, we would obviously take note of that. If not, that deserves to be spelt out.

Member
Ian Davidson (Labour; Co-operative Party)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 April 2012
Reference
543 c1172
House
House of Commons

On this occasion, I am able to welcome the hon. Gentleman's welcome. The provisions in the Bill, if these amendments are approved, will mean exactly that: the Supreme Court will not be able to substitute its own judgment for that of the High Court.

Member
David Mundell (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 April 2012
Reference
543 c1172
House
House of Commons

Many of us in the House would wish to associate ourselves with the very generous and entirely appropriate remarks that the Minister made about Paul McBride. May I put it to the Minister that these amendments are an entirely effective antidote to the ill judged and ill informed comments made...

Member
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 April 2012
Reference
543 c1172
House
House of Commons

No. The changes being introduced today are a result of a process that was instigated by the Advocate-General for Scotland.

Member
David Mundell (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 April 2012
Reference
543 c1173
House
House of Commons

I am happy to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that views expressed by the First Minister about the Supreme Court played no part in these amendments or the completion of the Scotland Bill. Indeed, in dialogue involving the Scottish Government and Lord Advocate a much more moderate and...

Member
David Mundell (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 April 2012
Reference
543 c1172-3
House
House of Commons

Leaving aside the vehemence of the language used by the First Minister, was the substance of his comments the cause of the changes being introduced?

Member
Ian Davidson (Labour; Co-operative Party)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 April 2012
Reference
543 c1173
House
House of Commons

First, let me associate the official Opposition with the Minister's remarks about Paul McBride. I also thank the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) for reminding the House of the importance of the Supreme Court in ensuring that institutions of government are exercised in...

Member
William Bain (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 April 2012
Reference
543 c1173-5
House
House of Commons

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as I deduced that he was about to conclude. Is it not important to remember that the case of Cadder raised the issue of the right to legal representation and advice for someone in police custody, and that the case...

Member
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 April 2012
Reference
543 c1175
House
House of Commons

I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. One of the strengths of the devolution settlement is that it allows a court of the seniority of the Supreme Court to make these determinations. It would have been wholly irresponsible to remove these basic protections from people in criminal...

Member
William Bain (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 April 2012
Reference
543 c1175
House
House of Commons

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 12.

Member
David Mundell (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 April 2012
Reference
543 c1176
House
House of Commons

Clause 25 allowed the Scottish Ministers to determine the national speed limit on roads in Scotland and to make regulations to specify traffic signs to indicate that limit. Clause 25 limited these powers to cars, motorcycles and vans under 3.5 tonnes. We listened carefully to the arguments presented by noble...

Member
David Mundell (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 April 2012
Reference
543 c1176
House
House of Commons

Will there be any restrictions under the Bill on the speed with which Scottish Government Ministers can change policy on issues such as income tax for a separate Scotland?

Member
Ian Davidson (Labour; Co-operative Party)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 April 2012
Reference
543 c1176
House
House of Commons