Thomas, Michael Christopher Pryce, (born 31 Oct. 1949), Legal Adviser to the European Union Committee, House of Lords, 2008–14

Author(s):  
Philip Lynch ◽  
Richard Whitaker

Most reports from UK departmental select committees are agreed by consensus, underpinning their reputation for non-partisan working in an adversarial House of Commons. However, divisions (formal votes) are more common than is often assumed, occurring on 9% of reports between 2010 and 2019. This article provides the first comprehensive analysis of unity and divisions on select committees. It finds that the incidence of divisions increases when opposition parties chair committees, when there are more rebellious members of parliament present and when more new members of parliament are in attendance. Brexit provoked significant inter-party and intra-party divisions in the Commons. In committees, divisions on Brexit reports are higher than those on other reports and the Exiting the European Union Committee has a clear Leave-Remain fault line. But, more broadly, the Brexit effect on select committees is limited and unanimity remains the norm even when there are policy differences between parties.


2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
V Gómez ◽  
A Machado ◽  
P Rama ◽  
C Furtado ◽  
D David ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Hand

Strained judicial interpretation of British discrimination law is not new;some of the leading House of Lords cases on the European Union law doctrine ofIndirect Effect have concerned discrimination law. The interpretative obligation, toread national law in line with EU law, has seen words read in and like being treatedwith like according to changing mores. However, the disability discrimination caseof EBR Attridge Law v Coleman [2010] I.C.R. 242 saw an entire sub-section beingread in by an Employment Appeal Tribunal. This article briefly reviews the Houseof Lords’ approach in earlier cases, primarily through the prism of discriminationlaw, and then asks, following more recent Employment Appeal Tribunal casesconcerning pregnancy discrimination and the protection from victimisation withinthe Equality Act 2010, whether the high-water mark for judicial re-writing has beenreached in Britain and whether compliance with European law can better be attainedin other ways.


Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd (No. 2) [1991] 1 AC 603, House of Lords. This case explored whether a United Kingdom court could suspend the effect of primary legislation where it was in conflict with European Community law. It necessarily raises questions about the nature and limits (if any) of parliamentary sovereignty, and for this reason remains relevant notwithstanding the UK’s departure from the European Union. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document