British law dopers: Why the "Statute" of Westminster?

Factual Questions
21

In addition to the standing orders referred to by UDS concerning unitary subject matter, there’s also the standing order for the royal recommendation for money bills. It provides that the Commons will not consider an appropriation or tax bill unless it’s accompanied by a recommendation from the Crown (ie Cabinet) that the money bill should be considered.

The requirement for the royal recommendation dates back to 1713, and was designed to ensure that budget matters had to be approved by both the Parliament and the executive.

It’s one of the key procedural rules that supports Cabinet government. Has been implemented in other Westminster style parliaments; there is a requirement for the royal recommendation in the constitution of Canada, for instance.

So sorry, Banksiaman MP - you need to get Cabinet onside with your funding bill.

22

Thanks @UDS1 and @Northern_Piper.

Being from one of the dominions freed at last from the Windsors’ oppressive yoke by the Statute of Westminster, I did know the broad concepts, but appreciate the clear and detailed additional context. And for the same reason still completely baffled by the concept of filibustering.

It also seemed too good an opportunity to pass on an excellent Simpsons clip.

23

Filibustering is essentially talking non-stop for a long time so that a debate runs out of time and a vote cannot be held on the law, effectively killing it.

The UK parliament has different rules to the US Senate. There you can read out a telephone directory when playing for time. Here, you mustn’t hesitate or deviate when speaking and there is a four-hour limit.

24

Point taken - the reason why I addressed the British in particular was because my question was not so much about the substance of the Statute of Westminster (which I understand is very important for the lawyers from the former dominions). It’s more about why this Statute deviates from the usual naming conventions for British Acts of Parliament.

25

more “freed at last from the British Parliament’s oppressive yoke” :slight_smile:

26

Sure, but the Statute wasn’t drafted by the British government. It was drafted by the Imperial Conference of 1930, where the UK, the six Dominions, and India were all represented (“India” here meaning British India, administered by the British, of course).

The 1930 Conference built on the proposals from the 1929 Conference on Imperial Shipping laws (yes, major constitutional developments can come out of shipping conferences, in Brit-world).

The Conference was composed of the various PMs and other government ministers from each government. The terms of the Statute were referred to a committee chaired by Viscount Sankey, the Lord Chancellor, with representation from all the Dominions: the Inter-Imperial Relations Committee. The actual drafting of the statute in turn was referred to a sub-committee on drafting, chaired by Sir Robert Garran, Solicitor-General of Australia.

The name of the statute, based on the report of the Committee, was just mentioned in passing:

A special question arose in respect to the application to Canada of the sections of the Statute proposed to be passed by the Parliament at Westminster (which it was thought might conveniently be called the Statute of Westminster), relating to the Colonial Laws Validity Act and other matters.

That’s it for the name of the Statute: agreed upon unanimously by the Sankey Committee on Inter-Imperial Relations, with representation from all the Dominions, and then adopted by the Imperial Conference in plenary session.

No doubt the British parliamentary drafters put the bill into the final form for enactment by the British Parliament, but the decision as to the name was made by the Imperial Conference.

Summary of Proceedings of the Imperial Conference, 1930, printed by the order of the Parliament of Canada, p. 17.

27

But you can repeat yourself (inevitable, if you’ve got four hours rather than just a minute).

28

You beat me to the joke (which I admittedly only know about because I listen to I’m Sorry, I Haven’t A Clue from time to time.)

29

Off-topic, but fill your boots:

30

Glad I don’t need to know this stuff to pass some test to live here in the UK.

A Parliament in Marlborough Country. That must be where they passed the Menthol Act.

31

Any changes to the Line of Succession are void under the Statute of Westminster unless all the Commonwealth Realms pass exactly similar legislation through their own parliaments.

‘Talking out’ a Bill, especially a govt Bill, is much more difficult in the British Parliament, due to the changes made to the House’s Standing Orders in the 19th c. to frustrate the filbustering activities of the Irish Nationalist members.

32

I doubt this would be rock solid if tested, though. One of the principles of the British constitution is that no Parliament can bind a successive one. If a hypothetical British Act of Parliament said, effectively, “No matter what the Statute of Westminster says, and no matter if the legislatures of the other Commonwealth Realms agree, the line of succession for the UK is amended as follows”, then British courts would uphold this.

33

Yes, especially since the reference to the succession is in the Preamble, which is a statement of a constitutional convention, but isn’t in the body of the Statute:

And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

Preambles are guides to interpretation of a statute, but do not themselves create statutory rules.

As well, the Judicial Committee ruled in Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke that a constitutional convention is not binding on Parliament, and if Parliament passes legislation contrary to a constitutional convention, the courts will enforce the statute.

Lord Reid for the majority stated:

It is often said that it would be unconstitutional for the United Kingdom Parliament to do certain things, meaning that the moral, political and other reasons against doing them are so strong that most people would regard it as highly improper if Parliament did these things. But that does not mean that it is beyond the power of Parliament to do such things. If Parliament chose to do any of them the Courts could not hold the Act of Parliament invalid.