Skip to main content

1-20 of 20 results for subject:Dissolution

Member X
Lord Pannick

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

More
Pannick, Lord (20)

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

Publisher


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

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howard, raised a concern that there might be a Prime Minister who is unable to govern and to secure a majority for a Dissolution. There is a constitutional solution to any such problem, should it occur—that such a Prime Minister should resign and let...

Member
Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 February 2022
Reference
818 c1592
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I suppose I should declare a professional interest in the possibility of Miller 3.

I support the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Norton and Lord Butler. I do not suggest that the courts would today never entertain a judicial review in relation to Dissolution. The...

Member
Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 February 2022
Reference
818 cc1615-6
House
House of Lords

No, because my point is that hopeless or frivolous applications will be dealt with speedily by the courts. This was plainly an application with no merit whatever, and my noble friend’s point, as I understood him, was that the mere existence of the jurisdiction could cause delay. I am giving...

Member
Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 February 2022
Reference
818 c1616
House
House of Lords

Does the noble Lord allow for the possibility that the reason why there was no precedent prior to Miller 2 was because no Prime Minister prior to that had abused, in the view of the court, the power to prorogue Parliament in order to frustrate his views in relation to...

Member
Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 February 2022
Reference
818 c1620
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell. Your Lordships will not want to hear lengthy Second Reading speeches at this stage, but it needs to be understood that because this House and the other place have disagreed twice, the Government are obliged either to accept our...

Member
Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 September 2011
Reference
730 c810-1
House
House of Lords

4: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, at beginning insert ““If, but only if, a resolution to this effect is approved by each House of the Parliament in question,””

Member
Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 May 2011
Reference
727 c822
House
House of Lords

My Lords, the amendments are in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, and the noble Lords, Lord Butler of Brockwell and Lord Armstrong of Ilminster. The noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, regrets that he is unable to be in his place because he is chairing a Joint...

Member
Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 May 2011
Reference
727 c822-4
House
House of Lords

My Lords, both the noble Lords, Lord Norton of Louth and Lord Rennard, proceed on the basis that the power to bring forward or postpone a general election would be exercised only in circumstances of crisis. It is very difficult—or impossible—to foresee such a crisis. I give noble Lords a...

Member
Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 May 2011
Reference
727 c878
House
House of Lords

If this amendment were to be approved by this House and if it were to be approved by the other place, that would be the parliamentary consent to the provisions of this Bill. That is no different in principle from any other circumstance where both Houses approve a particular procedure....

Member
Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 May 2011
Reference
727 c845
House
House of Lords

5: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out ““each”” and insert ““a”” Amendment 5 agreed. Amendments 6 and 7 not moved. Amendment 8 Moved by

Member
Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 May 2011
Reference
727 c847
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this interesting debate and for the support that has been expressed on all sides of the House. My answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, is that we are dealing with an exceptional...

Member
Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 May 2011
Reference
727 c843-4
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I, too, support these amendments. If we are to have fixed-term Parliaments, a change to the constitutional practice over the past 100 years advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, then four years is manifestly preferable to five. The Constitution Committee, of which I, too, am a member,...

Member
Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 May 2011
Reference
727 c789
House
House of Lords

He has chosen it.

Member
Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 March 2011
Reference
726 c191
House
House of Lords

Before the Minister responds, I should like to add my response to these amendments and, indeed, to so many of the thoughtful amendments to Clause 1 that have been tabled. They tinker with a fundamentally misconceived concept of a fixed-term Parliament, as was explained by so many of your Lordships...

Member
Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 March 2011
Reference
726 c220
House
House of Lords

Before the noble Lord sits down, does he accept that to mandate Saturday as the exclusive day for voting would effectively disfranchise Orthodox Jews? There may also be difficulties about observant members of the Christian community who would not wish to vote on a Sunday. Therefore, does the noble Lord...

Member
Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 March 2011
Reference
726 c165
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I, too, support the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, as to the need for careful consideration of constitutional reform. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, accurately pointed out that the Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, did not suggest that a referendum is required in...

Member
Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 March 2011
Reference
726 c188-9
House
House of Lords

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, in answer to my intervention, accepted that if there is to be weekend voting it would need to be over the whole two days of the weekend, albeit during shorter periods on each day. There are difficulties about that, not just the loss...

Member
Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 March 2011
Reference
726 c172
House
House of Lords

The noble Lord is of course correct, but it is much less likely that the electorate who vote during a single day will be aware of or affected by a major news event during that day than if the event occurs during that day and there is second day of...

Member
Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 March 2011
Reference
726 c172
House
House of Lords

Can the Deputy Leader clarify what is the purpose of legislating to allow for a dissolution of Parliament on a two-thirds vote of the Members of the other place? Her Majesty’s Opposition will of course seek to persuade that House, on a 50 per cent vote, to pass a vote...

Member
Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
5 July 2010
Reference
720 c34
House
House of Lords

My Lords—

Member
Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
5 July 2010
Reference
720 c34
House
House of Lords