Content deleted Content added
#article-section-source-editor Tags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit iOS app edit |
Ira Leviton (talk | contribs) m Fixed a reference. Please see Category:CS1 errors: dates. |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
Line 31:
* This convention was not respected during the 1987 general election, when both the [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour Party]] and the [[Social Democratic Party (UK)|Social Democratic Party]] fielded candidates against the Conservative speaker, [[Bernard Weatherill]], who was MP for [[Croydon North East (UK Parliament constituency)|Croydon North East]].
* The [[Scottish National Party]] (SNP) does stand against the speaker if they represent a [[Scottish Westminster constituencies|Scottish constituency]], as was the case with [[Michael Martin, Baron Martin of Springburn|Michael Martin]], speaker from 2000 to 2009.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/vote2005/flash_map/html/map05.stm|title=BBC NEWS | Election 2005 | Election Map|website=News.bbc.co.uk|access-date=27 July 2022}}</ref>
*The [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative Party]] threatened to stand a candidate against Speaker [[John Bercow]] in [[Buckingham (UK Parliament constituency)|Buckingham]] at the [[2019 United Kingdom general election|2019 general election]] due to perceived biases in rulings in relation to [[Brexit]] debates.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49624334 | title=Tories bid to depose Speaker Bercow after Commons revolt | work=BBC News | date=8 September 2019 }}</ref> However Bercow stepped down as an MP and as Speaker before this threatened breach of convention could occur.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50242631 | title=John Bercow steps down as Commons Speaker | work=BBC News | date=31 October 2019 }}</ref>
The Speaker enjoys wide discretion to interpret the Standing Orders and relevance of precedent. They decide the procedure of the House.<ref name=":0"/>
Line 63 ⟶ 64:
The [[Salisbury Convention]] – The Lords will give a second reading to government bills on manifesto commitments, a manifesto bill will not be significantly amended by 'wrecking amendments' which fundamentally alter its substance, a relevant bill will be sent to the Commons in sufficient time to deal with any amendments.
Commons Financial Privilege – The Lords will not oppose or make [[wrecking amendment]]s to bills dealing with taxation or expenditure. Where such an amendment is made, the bill will be returned to the Lords with a note indicating a breach of the convention.{{cn|date=March 2024}}
[[Primary and secondary legislation|Delegated legislation]] ([[Statutory instrument (UK)|statutory instruments]]) should only rarely{{clarify-inline|date=March 2024}} be objected to by the Lords.
=== House of Lords ===
Line 95 ⟶ 96:
* A previous convention held that any government defeated on a matter of major policy should resign. The [[Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011|Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011]] undercut this principle, though it is unclear as to its current standing given the [[Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022]]. Jacqy Sharpe suggests that the same end could be achieved by selecting an alternative PM whom the incumbent PM would be expected to recommend to the sovereign.<ref name=":0" />
Military intervention overseas – Except in exceptional circumstances, the House should debate and ''possibly''{{clarify-inline|date=March 2024}} vote on military deployments overseas.
* This convention was recognised in 2011 by the [[Cameron–Clegg coalition|Coalition government]], who suggested the emergence of a convention since 2003, starting with debates in the House regarding [[Iraq War|military intervention in Iraq]]. The precedent is generally thought to have been cemented by the 2013 vote on military intervention in Syria. The government respected the parliamentary vote not to undertake military intervention in the conflict, despite the prerogative power to order military action allowing for unilateral government action.
* The convention remains unsettled. Jacqy Sharpe of the [[The Constitution Society|Constitution Society]]<ref name=":0" /> has suggested it includes a requirement that Parliament votes on the proposed intervention, but this is disputed by the [[House of Commons Library|Commons Library]] briefing paper on the convention.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7166/|title=Military Action Convention - Commons Library|website=Commonslibrary.parliament.uk|access-date=27 July 2022}}</ref>
[[Prorogation in the United Kingdom|Prorogation]] – The Prime Minister advises the sovereign on when to end a parliamentary session.
Line 127 ⟶ 128:
The [[Lascelles Principles]] – The sovereign should follow the three conventional principles in accepting the resignation of a serving Prime Minister.
Retiring PMs should advise the
Ministerial communication with the sovereign should remain confidential.<ref name=":0" />
Line 148:
The Sewel Convention applies to the [[Northern Ireland Assembly|Northern Irish Assembly]].
== Conventions
=== Law Officer
The [[Law officers of the Crown|
The Law Officers' Convention
* The Cabinet Manual states the convention operates as follows: the fact that the Law Officers have advised, or have not advised, and the content of their advice may not be disclosed outside government without their authority. The Law Officers’ advice to government is subject to legal professional privilege (LPP) and is confidential.<ref name="auto">{{Cite web|url=https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/60641/cabinet-manual.pdf|title=Cabinet Manual|website=Assets.publishing.service.gov.uk|access-date=27 July 2022}}</ref>
The [[Shawcross principle|Shawcross Convention]]
A further convention in relation to Law Officer advice, operating on other
=== Independence of the
The
* Since 2005 this convention has been overtaken by the statutory obligations placed on the [[Lord Chancellor]] under the 'guarantee of continued judicial independence' at [[Constitutional Reform Act 2005|section 3 Constitutional Reform Act 2005]].<ref name=":1" />
Ministers will not criticise judicial decisions; judges will not criticise
Members of the judiciary will not comment on political issues while serving.
== Legal
A fundamental principle underlying the constitutional convention is that it is not subject to enforcement by a court of law. While this has been a long-held position followed by the courts, it was made explicit in the case of ''[[R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union|Miller (No 1)]]'', where the Supreme Court made clear that while the courts could take account of the fact that conventions were operating in a particular area, they were not legally enforceable. The Supreme Court affirmed the view of Professor Colin Munro that 'the validity of conventions cannot be the subject of proceedings in a court of law'.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Miller No 1 |url=https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0196-judgment.pdf|website=Supremecourt.uk}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2019-09-24 |title=A new approach to constitutional adjudication? Miller II in the Supreme Court |url=https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2019/09/24/the-supreme-courts-judgment-in-cherry-miller-no-2-a-new-approach-to-constitutional-adjudication/ |access-date=2022-07-04 |website=Public Law for Everyone |language=en}}</ref>
{{Blockquote|text=Judges...are neither the parents nor the guardians of political conventions; they are merely observers. As such, they can recognise the operation of a political convention in the context of deciding a legal question ...but they cannot give legal rulings on its operation or scope, because those matters are determined within the political world..|author=R (on the application of Miller and another) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5|title="Miller No 1"}}
=== Legislated
The Supreme Court have continued to affirm the view that conventions remain unenforceable in law despite being included in statute, so long as the legislation still expresses these conventions as merely conventions. Section 2 of the [[Scotland Act 2016]] and [[Wales Act 2017]] placed the Sewel convention within legislation. However, recognising the existence of the convention within legislation did not alter the status of the convention. The [[Supreme Court of the United Kingdom|Supreme Court]] in ''[[R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union|Miller No 1]]'' confirmed the status of the Sewel Convention as only a convention and not legally enforceable.
{{Blockquote|text= [B]y such provisions, the UK Parliament is not seeking to convert the Sewel Convention into a rule which can be interpreted, let alone enforced, by the courts; rather, it is recognising the convention for what it is, namely a political convention, and is effectively declaring that it is a permanent feature of the relevant devolution settlement. That follows from the nature of the content, and is acknowledged by the words (“it is recognised” and “will not normally”), of the relevant subsection. We would have expected UK Parliament to have used other words if it were seeking to convert a convention into a legal rule justiciable by the courts.|author=R (on the application of Miller and another) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5|title="Miller No 1"}}
In taking this view, the
===See also===
*[[Ponsonby Rule]]
== References ==
| |||