Not exact matches
The ruling against the Ministry of Justice suggests non-smoking wings would require some sort of
change in the law, probably
through statutory instrument.
Statutory instruments mean you can quickly get a
change to the law
through parliament without the usual standards of debate and scrutiny.
A letter from Smith and the shadow welfare secretary, Debbie Abraham, to the Northern Ireland secretary, James Brokenshire, warns: «This measure is being introduced in the absence of a functioning executive in Northern Ireland... To impose such
changes from Westminster, especially
through the back door of a
statutory instrument without scrutiny even by committee, is completely at odds with principles of the devolution settlement as agreed under the Good Friday agreement and subsequent agreements, including Fresh Start.»
«But for whatever reason we have not been able to get
statutory changes through the state Assembly.
And it did not appear in a bill but in a
statutory instrument, a mechanism designed to speed minor
changes in law
through parliament with a minimum of debate, and now regularly misused by successive governments.
That
change is likely to be that the Lords will have their power to vote down
statutory instruments removed, thereby allowing governments even further powers to sneak
through legislation with a minimum of scrutiny.
(Sec. 9207) The bill amends the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 to make several
changes to the Educational Flexibility Program,
through which ED may authorize an SEA to waive certain
statutory or regulatory program requirements established under either the ESEA or the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006.
In light of the
statutory history, the contemporaneous external sources, and the principle that Parliament does not create new offences except
through clear and definitive language, the much more plausible reading of the 1954 amendment is that it was the meaning of buggery, not bestiality, that underwent a
change.
Amid concerns over proposed
changes to the Contempt of Act 1981,
through the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, which would introduce new
statutory powers for the removal of online material *, it seems worth highlighting some separate recommendations on contempt and court reporting, published in late March.
The commenter reasoned that since the ERISA definitions may
change over time
through statutory amendment, Department of Labor regulations or judicial interpretation, it would not be clear what point in time is to be considered current.