indian-act

indian removal act

2007-05-28T20:07:00.000-07:00

Educators

Postsecondary Educators

Education Policymakers

Students

Acts of constitutional importance

Important Acts in constitutional history include:

Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542 - united England and Wales

Bill of Rights 1689 - placed (or restated) limits on the monarch's power

Act of Settlement 1701 - established a line of succession for the monarchy

Act of Union 1707 - united England and Scotland into Great Britain

Act of Union 1800 - united Great Britain and Ireland into the United Kingdom

Reform Act 1832 - with later Reform Acts and Representation of the People Acts, extended the franchise and removed rotten boroughs

Parliament Act 1911 - allowed the House of Commons to overrule the House of Lords after a delay

Statute of Westminster 1931 – gave constitutional independence to the British dominions overseas

European Communities Act 1972 – made the UK part of what is now the European Union providing for the application of European Law

Human Rights Act 1998 - Enshrined Convention rights in domestic law

Scotland Act 1998 - established an autonomous Scottish Parliament

Government of Wales Act 1998 - created a National Assembly For Wales

Government of Wales Act 2006 conferring additional law making powers to the National Assembly for Wales

Act Overview:

laws ~ wales ~ act

2007-05-28T19:51:00.000-07:00

Laws in Wales Acts

Law Overview: enforcement law, firm law, law, jude law, law school, court law, criminal law, law megans, family law, law order, degree law, law lemon, labor law, law state, business law, 48 law power, employment law, bankruptcy law, law of attraction, law order svu, law unwritten, law office, 20 divine law manifest mind power prosperity secret thinking using, immigration law, estate law real, book law, black dictionary law, california law

Wales Overview: wales, north wales, johnson and wales, lake wales fl real estate, lake wales real estate, johnson and wales university, new south wales, lake wales, prince of wales, buy to let mortgage wales

The Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542 were a series of parliamentary measures by which the legal system of Wales was annexed to England and the norms of English administration introduced in order to create a single state and a single legal jurisdiction, which is frequently referred to as England and Wales. The Acts refer in particular to two Acts of Parliament passed in 1536 and 1543 during the reign of King Henry VIII of England, who came from the Welsh Tudor dynasty.

From the conquest Gwynedd in 1282–83 until the passing of the Laws in Wales Acts in 1535–1542, the administrative system of Wales had remained unchanged. By the Statute of Rhuddlan in 1284 the territory of the native Welsh rulers had been broken up into the five counties of Anglesey, Caernarfon, Cardigan, Carmarthen, and Merioneth. Even though the five counties were subject to English criminal law, the 'Principality' was the king of England's own personal fief and Welsh law continued to be used for civil cases. The rest of Wales, except for the county of Flint, which was part of the Principality, and the Royal lordships of Glamorgan and Pembroke, was made up of numerous small lordships, each with its own courts, laws and other customs.

When Henry VII came to the throne in 1485 no change was made to the system of governing the country. But he remained concerned about the power of the Marcher Lords and the lawlessness and disorder in the Welsh Marches. To deal with this there was a revival of the Council of Wales and the Marches, which had been established in the reign of Edward IV. After the deaths of many of the Marcher lords during the Wars of the Roses, many of the lordships had passed into the hands of the crown.

Henry VIII did not see the need to reform the government of Wales at the beginning of his reign, but gradually he perceived a threat from some of the remaining Marcher lords and therefore instructed his chief administrator, Thomas Cromwell, to seek a solution. His solution was the annexation or incorporation of Wales which, along with other significant changes at the same time, led to the creation of England as a modern sovereign state.

The Acts have been known as the "Acts of Union", but they were not popularly referred to as such until 1901, when historian Owen M. Edwards assigned them that name — a name which some regard as misleading as the Acts were concerned with harmonising laws, not political union.

Effects of the Acts

These Acts also had the following effects on the administration of Wales:

· the marcher lordships were abolished as political units and five new counties (Monmouthshire, Brecknockshire, Radnorshire, Montgomeryshire and Denbighshire) were established, thus creating a Wales of 13 counties;

· other areas of the lordships were annexed to Shropshire, Herefordshire, Gloucestershire, Glamorgan, Carmarthenshire, Pembrokeshire, Cardiganshire and Merionethshire

· the borders of Wales were established and have remained the same since; this was unintentional as Wales was to be incorporated fully into England, but the status of Monmouthshire was still ambiguous until 1974;

· the courts of the marcher lordships lost the power to try serious criminal cases;

· the office of Justice of the Peace was introduced;

· Wales elected members to the English (Westminster) Parliament;

· the Council of Wales and the Marches was established on a legal basis;

· the Court of Great Sessions were establishhed, a system peculiar to Wales;

· a Sheriff was appointed in every county, and other county officers as in England.

These measures were not unpopular with the Welsh, who recognised that they would give them equality under law with English citizens. The reaction of the prominent Welsh of the day and down the centuries were very similar gratitude that the laws had been introduced and made Wales a peaceful and orderly country.

It was only much later that some of the Welsh started to feel, in the words of A. O. H. Jarman, "that the privileges of citizenship were only given to the Welsh on condition that they forgot their own particular past and personality, denied their Welshness, and merged with England."

Despite historians such as G. R. Elton, who treated the Acts as merely a triumph of Tudor efficiency, modern British and Welsh historians are more likely to investigate evidence of the damaging effects of the Acts on Welsh identity, culture, and economy. While the Welsh gentry embraced the Acts and quickly attempted to merge themselves into English aristocracy, the majority of the population could have found themselves adrift amidst a legal and economic system whose language and focus were unfamiliar to them.

The Acts and the Welsh language

An often quoted example of the effects on the Welsh language is the first section of the 1535 Act, which states: "the people of the same dominion have and do daily use a speche nothing like ne consonant to the naturall mother tonge used within this Realme" and then declares the intention "utterly to extirpe alle and singular sinister usages and customs" belonging to Wales.

Section 20 of the 1535 Act makes English the only language of the law courts and that those who used Welsh would not be appointed to any public office in Wales:

1. Also be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That all Justices, Comissioners, Sheriffs, Coroners, Escheators, Stewards, and their Lieutenants, and all other Officers and Ministers of the Law, shall proclaim and keep the Sessions Courts, Hundreds, Leets, Sheriffs Courts, and all other Courts in the English Tongue;

2. and all Oaths of Officers, Juries and Inquests, and all other Affadavits, Verdicts and Wagers of Law, to be given and done in the English Tongue;

3. and also that from henceforth no Person or Persons that use the Welsh Speech or Language, shall have or enjoy any manner Office or Fees within this Realm of England, Wales, or other the King's Dominion, upon Pain of forfeiting the same Offices or Fees, unless he or they use and exercise the English Speech or Language.

An effect of this language clause was to lay the foundation for creating a thoroughly Anglicised ruling class of landed gentry in Wales, which would have many consequences.

The parts of the 1535 Act relating to language were definitively repealed only in 1993, by the Welsh Language Act 1993, though anotations on the Statute Law Database copy of the act reads that sections 18–21 were repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1887.

bill of rights

2007-05-28T19:43:00.000-07:00

Bill of Rights 1689

bill of right, us bill of right, english bill of right, patient bill of right, united state bill of right, picture of the bill of right, bill of right constitution, philippine bill of right, bill of right for kid, copy of bill of right

The English Bill of Rights 1689 is an Act of the Parliament of England (1 Will. & Mar. sess. 2 c. 2) with the long title An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown and also known by its short title, the Bill of Rights. It is one of the basic documents of English constitutional law, alongside Magna Carta, the Act of Settlement and the Parliament Acts. It also forms part of the law of some other Commonwealth nations, such as New Zealand. A separate but similar document applies in Scotland: the Claim of Right.

The Bill of Rights 1689 is largely a statement of certain positive rights that its authors considered that citizens and/or residents of a constitutional monarchy ought to have. It asserts the Subject's right to petition the Monarch and the Subject's right to bear arms for defence. It also sets out (or in the view of its writers, restates) certain constitutional requirements where the actions of the Crown require the consent of the governed as represented in Parliament. In this respect, it differs from other "bills of rights," including the United States Bill of Rights, though many elements of the first eight amendments to the U.S. Constitution echo its contents. This is in part due to the uncodified constitutional traditions of the UK, whereby the English Bill of Rights forms a list of rights in respect of the people as represented in Parliament, in addition to those rights already provided for individuals as set out in Magna Carta.

Background

In the Glorious Revolution, William of Orange landed with his army in England on 5 November 1688. James II attempted to resist the invasion. He then sent representatives to negotiate but finally fled on 23 December 1688.

Before William and Mary were affirmed as co-rulers of England and Ireland, they accepted a Declaration of Rights drawn up by the Convention Parliament which was delivered to them at the Banqueting House, Whitehall, on 13 February 1689. Having accepted the Declaration of Rights, William and Mary were offered the throne, and were crowned as joint monarchs in April 1689. The Declaration of Rights was later embodied in an Act of Parliament, now known as the Bill of Rights, on 16 December 1689.

In the then separate Kingdom of Scotland, the 1689 Claim of Right of the Scottish Estates was expressed in different terms, but to a largely similar effect, declaring William and Mary to be King and Queen of Scotland on 11 April 1689.

Basic tenets

The basic tenets of the Bill of Rights 1689 are:

· Englishmen, as embodied by Parliament, possessed certain immutable civil and political rights. These included:

o freedom from royal interference with the law (the Sovereign was forbidden to establish his own courts or to act as a judge himself)

o freedom from taxation by royal prerogative, without agreement by Parliament

o freedom to petition the King

o freedom from a peace-time standing army, without agreement by Parliament

o freedom [for Protestants] to have arms for defence, as allowed by law

o freedom to elect members of Parliament without interference from the Sovereign

o the freedom of speech in Parliament, in that proceedings in Parliament were not to be questioned in the courts or in any body outside Parliament itself (the basis of modern parliamentary privilege)

o freedom from cruel and unusual punishments, and excessive bail

o freedom from fines and forfeitures without trial

· Certain acts of James II were specifically named and declared illegal on this basis.

· The flight of James from England in the wake of the Glorious Revolution amounted to abdication of the throne.

· Roman Catholics could not be king or queen of England since "it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this protestant kingdom to be governed by a papist prince". The Sovereign was required to swear a coronation oath to maintain the Protestant religion.

· William and Mary were the successors of James.

· Succession should pass to the heirs of Mary, then to Mary's sister Princess Anne of Denmark and her heirs, then to any heirs of William by a later marriage.

· The Sovereign was required to summon Parliament frequently, later reinforced by the Triennial Act 1694.

act of settlement

2007-05-28T19:37:00.000-07:00

Act of Settlement 1701

real estate settlement procedure act, structured settlement protection act, act of settlement, act of settlement 1701, alaska native claim settlement act, jones act settlement

The Act of Settlement (12 & 13 Wm 3 c.2) was an Act of the Parliament of England to settle the succession to the English throne on the heirs of the Electress Sophia of Hanover, a granddaughter of James I. It remains the main Act of Parliament governing the succession to the thrones of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms, whether by deference to the Act as a British statute or as a patriated part of the particular Realm's constitution.

As such, the Act remains a key part of the constitutions of the United Kingdom and of the other Commonwealth Realms. The Act was originally filed in the Parliament of England in 1700, passed in 1701, and was later extended to Scotland by the terms of the Acts of Union 1707 before it was ever needed. It has since been incorporated in all such matters as noted above, including that establishing the United Kingdom.

Because of a change in the way bills are named, the Act is also sometimes referred to as the Act of Settlement 1700. The measure contains neither date in its title, making the minor name ambiguity in some references to it now a matter of mere interesting historical/clerical trivia. Today it is generally always referred to as Act of Settlement 1701.

Against an aging background

Originally an Act of the Parliament of England, it was passed formally in June 1701[1] during the late reign of King William III to set the succession and avoid a crisis. As the King was childless and his wife Mary II had died in 1694, the throne would pass to Mary's sister Princess Anne on the King's death.

Anne's last surviving child, William, Duke of Gloucester, died in 1700, inspiring the need to set the future succession as, given her age, she was unlikely to have any more children. Further, under the Bill of Rights 1689, the line of succession was limited to the descendants of Mary II and Anne, thus there was a need for a new law to allow the succession to continue in the Protestant line, and to avoid any crises and potential conflict as in the prior century by excluding any possible claims by the deposed James II or his son, James Francis Edward Stuart.

Act of Union

This Act was, in many ways, the major cause of the Union of Scotland with England and Wales to form the Kingdom of Great Britain. The Parliament of Scotland was not happy with the Act of Settlement and, in response, passed the Act of Security in 1704, which gave Scotland the right to choose its own successor to Queen Anne.

As a result, the Parliament of England decided that to ensure the stability and future prosperity of Great Britain, full union of the two Parliaments and nations was essential before Anne's death, and used a combination of exclusionary legislation (the Alien Act of 1705), politics, and bribery to achieve it within three years under the Act of Union 1707. This was in marked contrast to the four attempts at political union between 1606 and 1689, which all failed owing to a lack of political will in both kingdoms. By virtue of Article II of the Treaty of Union, which defined the succession to the British Crown, the Act of Settlement became part of Scots Law as well.

Sophia died before Anne, so the result of the Act was the succession of Sophia's son George as King George I, in preference to many of his cousins.

Pursuant to the Act of Settlement, several members of the British Royal Family who have converted to Roman Catholicism or married Roman Catholics have been barred from succeeding to the Crown, though since George I no individual has actually been excluded from the throne on the grounds of religion.

Current effects

Since the passing of the Act, the most senior royal to have married a Roman Catholic and thereby been removed from the line of succession is Prince Michael of Kent, who married Baroness Marie-Christine von Reibnitz in 1978. Prince Michael of Kent was 15th in the line of succession at the time of his marriage.

The current most senior living descendant of the Electress Sophia who is ineligible to succeed due to the Act is George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews, the eldest son of Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, who married the Roman Catholic Sylvana Palma Tomaselli in 1988. He would be 23rd in the line of succession if he had not lost his place. His son, Lord Downpatrick converted to Roman Catholicism in 2003, and is the most senior descendant to be barred as a Catholic himself.

Only one member of the Royal Family (i.e. with the style Royal Highness) has converted to Roman Catholicism since the passing of the Act: The Duchess of Kent, wife of Prince Edward, Duke of Kent. The Duchess converted to Roman Catholicism on January 14, 1994. Her husband, the Duke, did not lose his place in the succession, as the Duchess was an Anglican at the time of their marriage.

act of union 1707

2007-05-28T19:36:00.000-07:00

Act of Union 1707

act of union, act class credit federal union, act of union 1707, trade union act, federal credit union act, act class credit union

The Acts of Union was a pair of Parliamentary acts passed in 1706 and 1707 that took effect on 1 May 1707 by the Parliament of England and the Parliament of Scotland, respectively. These Acts were the implementation of the Treaty of Union negotiated between the two countries.

The Kingdom of Great Britain was created by merging the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland. Since the Union of the Crowns in 1603, the two countries shared a monarch but retained separate and sovereign parliaments.

The Acts of Union dissolved both the parliaments of England and Scotland and replaced them with a new Parliament, called the Parliament of Great Britain. This new parliament is based in Westminster, the former home of the English Parliament. These Acts are referred to as the Union of the Parliaments.

Background

While there had been three attempts in 1606, 1667, and 1689 to unite the two countries by Acts of Parliament, these were the first Acts that had the will of both political establishments behind them, albeit for rather different reasons. In the English case, the purpose was to establish the Royal succession along Protestant lines in the same manner as provided for by the English Act of Settlement 1701, rather than that of the Scottish Act of Security 1704. The two countries had shared a king for much of the previous century. The English were concerned that an independent Scotland with a different king, even if he were a Protestant, might make alliances against England.

In the Scottish case, it was claimed that union would enable Scotland to recover from the financial disaster wrought by the Darien scheme through English assistance and the lifting of measures put in place through the Alien Act to force the Scottish Parliament into compliance with the Act of Settlement.

The treaty consisted of 25 articles, 15 of which were economic in nature. In Scotland, each article was voted on separately and several clauses in articles were delegated to specialised subcommittees. Article 1 of the treaty was based on the political principle of an incorporating union and this was secured by a majority of 116 votes to 83 on 4 November 1706. In order to minimise the opposition of the Church of Scotland, an Act was also passed to secure the Presbyterian establishment of the Church, after which the Church stopped its open opposition, although hostility remained at lower levels of the clergy. The treaty as a whole was finally ratified on 16 January 1707 by a majority of 110 votes to 69.

The ultimate securing of the treaty in the unicameral Scottish Parliament can be attributed more to the weakness and lack of cohesion between the various opposition groups in the House as opposed to the strength of pro-incorporationists[citation needed]. The combined votes of the Court party with a majority of the Squadrone Volante were sufficient to ensure the final passage of the treaty through the House. Many Commissioners had invested heavily in the Darien Scheme and they believed that they would receive compensation for their losses; Article 14, the Equivalent granted GBP398,085 10s to Scotland to offset future liability towards the English national debt. In essence, it was also used as a means of compensation for investors in the Darien Scheme.

Bribery was also prevalent. £20,000 (£240,000 Scots) was dispatched to Scotland for distribution by the Earl of Glasgow. James Douglas, 2nd Duke of Queensberry, the Queen's Commissioner in Parliament, received £12,325, the majority of the funding. To many Scots, this amounted to little more than a bribe. Robert Burns describing it as

Criticisms

For the very simple reason that the two parliaments had evolved along different lines, contradictions and teething troubles were frequent. For example, the English doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty in all aspects of national life did not exist in Scotland, and the Scottish Parliament was unicameral, not bicameral. Most of the pre-Union traditions of Westminster continued, while those of Scotland were forgotten or ignored.

Defoe drew upon his Scottish experience to write his Tour thro' the whole Island of Great Britain, published in 1726, where he actually admitted that the increase of trade and population in Scotland, which he had predicted as a consequence of the Union, was "not the case, but rather the contrary", and that the hostility towards his party was, "because they were English and because of the Union, which they were almost universally exclaimed against".

Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, a vehement critic of the Union, said in An Account of a Conversation, that Scotland suffered “the miserable and languishing condition of all places that depend upon a remote seat of government."

However by the time Samuel Johnson and James Boswell made their tour in 1773, recorded in A Journey to the Western Islands of Scotland Johnson noted that Scotland was: “a nation of which the commerce is hourly extending, and the wealth encreasing”, and Glasgow in particular had become one of the greatest cities of Britain.

act of union

2007-05-28T19:32:00.000-07:00

Act of Union 1800

act of union, act class credit federal union, act of union 1707, trade union act, federal credit union act, act class credit union

The Act of Union 1800 also referred to as the Act of Union 1801, merged the Kingdom of Ireland and the unified Kingdom of Great Britain, (being itself a merger of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland under the Act of Union 1707), to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It is important to note that although the act itself was passed on July 2, 1800, it was not made effective until 1 January 1801, which creates confusion as to the actual date of the merger.

Prior to this act Ireland had been in personal union with England since 1541, when the Protestant Ascendancy dominating Irish Parliament passed the Crown of Ireland Act 1542, proclaiming King Henry VIII of England to be King of Ireland. Both Ireland and England had been in personal union with Scotland since the Union of the Crowns in 1603.

The Act

The Act had to be passed by both the Parliament of Great Britain (39 & 40 Geo. 3 c. 67) and the Parliament of Ireland (40 Geo. 3 c. 38). Contemporary laws excluded all non-Anglicans from membership, an exclusion that meant that over 90% of the Irish population who belonged to other faiths, most notably Roman Catholicism, the religion of the majority, were banned from membership. Catholics were denied the vote until the 1790s, and furthermore were not allowed to become Members of Parliament until Catholic Emancipation in 1829. This Irish Parliament was the central institution in what had become known by the 1780s as the Protestant Ascendancy. It was also responsible for a series of anti-Catholic discriminatory laws known as the Penal Laws. It had been given a large measure of independence by the Constitution of 1782, after centuries of being subordinated to the English (and later, British) Parliament. Thus, many members had guarded its autonomy jealously, including Henry Grattan, and had rejected a previous motion for Union in 1799. However, a concerted campaign by the British government, the uncertainty that followed the Irish Rebellion of 1798, and the fact that the Irish and British parliaments, when creating regency during King George III's "madness", gave the Prince Regent different powers, led Great Britain to decide to merge the two kingdoms and their parliaments. The final passage of the Act in the Irish Parliament was achieved with substantial majorities, achieved in part according to contemporary documents through bribery, namely the awarding of peerages and honours to critics to get their votes.[1] Whereas the first attempt had been defeated in the Irish House of Commons by 109 votes against to 104 for, the second vote in 1800 produced a result of 158 to 115

The Act had eight articles:

· Articles I–IV dealt with the political aspects of the Union which included Ireland having over 100 MPs representing it in the united parliament, meeting in the Palace of Westminster (more than would be proportionate according to population). Ireland gained 100 seats in the House of Commons and 32 seats in the House of Lords: 28 representative peers elected for life, and four clergymen of the (Anglican) Church of Ireland, chosen for each session.

· Article V created a united Protestant Church of England and Ireland.

· Article VI created a customs union in which British duties on some Irish goods would be removed but Irish duties on imports would remain.

· Article VII stated that Ireland would have to contribute two-seventeenths towards the expenditure of the United Kingdom. The figure was a ratio of Irish to British foreign trade.

· Article VIII formalised the legal and judicial aspects of the Union.

Part of the attraction of the Union for many Irish Catholics was the promise of Catholic Emancipation, thereby allowing Roman Catholic MPs (which had not been allowed in the Irish Parliament). However this was blocked by King George III who argued that emancipating Roman Catholics would breach his Coronation Oath; it was delayed until 1829.

immigration reform

2007-05-28T19:26:00.000-07:00

Reform Act 1832

immigration reform, reform, reform school, health care reform, 2007 immigration reform

The Representation of the People Act 1832, commonly known as the Reform Act 1832, was an Act of Parliament that introduced wide-ranging changes to the electoral system of the United Kingdom. According to its preamble, the act was designed to "take effectual Measures for correcting diverse Abuses that have long prevailed in the Choice of Members to serve in the Commons House of Parliament."

The Reform Act was proposed by the Whigs led by the Prime Minister Lord Grey. The legislation met with significant opposition from the Tories, especially in the House of Lords. Nevertheless, as a result of public pressure, the bill eventually passed. The act granted seats in the House of Commons to large cities that sprang up during the Industrial Revolution, and took away seats from boroughs which had very small populations (these boroughs were often called "rotten boroughs"). The act also increased the number of individuals entitled to vote, increasing the size of electorate from between 50 to 80 percent. 653,000 adult males (around one in five) were able to vote after the passage of the act in a population of some 14 million. The Act also specifically disenfranchised women, sparking the British suffrage movement.

The act was, in full, entitled: "An Act to amend the representation of the people in England and Wales." Its formal short title and citation of the act was: "Representation of the People Act 1832 (2 & 3 Will. IV, c. 45)." The act only applied in England and Wales; separate reform bills were passed for Scotland and Ireland Other reform measures were passed later during the 19th century; as a result, the Reform Act 1832 is sometimes called the First Reform Act, or the Great Reform Act.

Reform during the 1820s

Since the House of Commons regularly rejected direct challenges to the system of representation by large majorities, supporters of reform had to content themselves with more modest measures. The Whig Lord John Russell brought forward one such measure in 1820, proposing the disfranchisement of the notoriously corrupt borough of Grampound in Cornwall. He suggested that the borough's two seats be transferred to the city of Leeds. Tories in the House of Lords agreed to the disfranchisement of the borough, but refused to accept the precedent of directly transferring its seats to an industrial city. Instead, they modified the proposal so that two further seats were given to Yorkshire, the county in which Leeds is situated. In this form, the bill passed both houses and became law. In 1828, Lord John Russell suggested that Parliament repeat the idea by abolishing the corrupt boroughs of Penryn and East Retford, and by transferring their seats to Manchester and Birmingham. This time, however, the House of Lords rejected his proposals. In 1830, Russell proposed another, similar scheme: the enfranchisement of Leeds, Manchester, and Birmingham, and the disfranchisement of the next three boroughs found guilty of corruption; again, the proposal was rejected.

Support for reform came from an unexpected source a faction of the Tory Party in 1829. The Tory government under Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, responding to the danger of civil strife in largely Roman Catholic Ireland, drew up the Catholic Relief Act 1829. This legislation repealed various laws that imposed political disabilities on Roman Catholics, in particular laws that prevented them from becoming members of Parliament. In response, disenchanted Tories who perceived a danger to the established religion came to favour parliamentary reform, in particular the enfranchisement of Manchester, Leeds, and other heavily Protestant cities in northern England.

Effects

Although it did disfranchise several rotten boroughs, the Reform Act did not address all the anomalies in the electoral system. A few small boroughs, such as Totnes in Devon and Great Yarmouth in Norfolk, were spared. While nomination boroughs were largely swept away, bribery of the voters remained a problem. As Sir Erskine May observed, "it was too soon evident, that as more votes had been created, more votes were to be sold." Also, the vast majority of the population remained voteless; immediately after the passage of the Great Reform Act, only about 650,000 Englishmen possessed the franchise. The magnitude of the unreformed electorate is difficult to accurately determine, because of a lack of voter registration and because many boroughs were rarely contested. One estimate gives suggests that 400,000 were entitled to vote in 1831, meaning that the Reform Act enlarged the electorate by more than 60%.

Most of the pocket boroughs abolished by the Reform Act belonged to the Tory Party. These losses were somewhat offset by extending the right to vote to tenants-at-will paying an annual rent of £50. This clause, proposed by the Tory Marquess of Chandos, was adopted in the House of Commons despite opposition from the Government. The tenants-at-will enfranchised by the Chandos clause typically voted in accordance with the wishes of their landlords, who in turn normally supported the Tory party. This concession, together with the Whig Party's internal divisions and the difficulties faced by the nation's economy, allowed the Tories under Sir Robert Peel to make gains in the elections of 1835 and 1837, and to retake the House of Commons in 1841.

The Reform Act undoubtedly strengthened the House of Commons by reducing the number of nomination boroughs controlled by peers, but the Lords nonetheless remained powerful. Some aristocrats complained that, in the future, the government could compel them to pass a bill simply by threatening to swamp the upper House by creating new peerages. The Duke of Wellington lamented: "If such projects can be carried into execution by a minister of the Crown with impunity, there is no doubt that the constitution of this House, and of this country, is at an end. There is absolutely an end put to the power and objects of deliberation in this House, and an end to all just and proper means of decision." But the subsequent history of Parliament indicates that the influence of the Lords was largely undiminished. They compelled the Commons to accept significant amendments to the Municipal Reform Bill in 1835, forced compromises on Jewish emancipation, and resisted several other bills despite public opinion to the contrary.

parliament

2007-05-28T12:06:00.000-07:00

Parliament Acts

acts of parliament, act canadian emergency management parliament proposed, british parliament acts, uk acts of parliament

The Parliament Acts are two Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom, passed in 1911 and 1949, that form part of the Constitution of the United Kingdom.[1]

The first Parliament Act, the Parliament Act 1911 (1 & 2 Geo. 5. c. 13), asserted the supremacy of the House of Commons by limiting the legislation-blocking powers of the House of Lords (the suspensory veto). Provided the provisions of the Act are met, legislation can be passed without the approval of the House of Lords. Additionally, the 1911 Act amended the Septennial Act to reduce the maximum permitted time between general elections from seven years to five years. The first Parliament Act was amended by the second Parliament Act, the Parliament Act 1949 (12, 13 & 14 Geo. 6. c. 103), which further limited the power of the Lords by reducing the time that they could delay bills, from two years to one.

The Parliament Acts have been used to pass legislation against the wishes of the House of Lords on only seven occasions since 1911, including the passing of the Parliament Act 1949. Doubts that existed in academic circles concerning the validity of the 1949 Act were refuted in 2005 when members of the Countryside Alliance unsuccessfully challenged the validity of the Hunting Act 2004, which had been passed under the auspices of the Act. In October 2005, the House of Lords dismissed the Alliance's appeal against this decision, with an unusually large panel of nine Law Lords holding that the 1949 Act was a valid Act of Parliament.

Background to the 1911 Act

The 1911 Act was a reaction to the clash between the Liberal government and the House of Lords, culminating in the so-called "People's Budget" of 1909. In this Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer David Lloyd George proposed the introduction of a land tax based on the ideas of the American tax reformer Henry George. This new tax would have had a major effect on large landowners, and was opposed by the Conservative opposition, many of whom were large landowners themselves. The Conservatives believed that money should be raised through the introduction of tariffs on imports, which they claimed would help British industry. Contrary to British constitutional convention, the Conservatives used their large majority in the Lords to vote down the Budget, but the Liberals built on the wide-spread unpopularity of the Lords to make reducing the power of the Lords an important issue of the January 1910 general election.

The Liberals returned in a hung parliament after the election: their call for action against the Lords had energised believers in hereditary principle to vote for the Conservatives, but had failed to generate much interest with the rest of the voting public. The Liberals formed a minority government with the support of the Labour and Irish nationalist MPs. The Lords subsequently accepted the Budget when the land tax proposal was dropped. However, as a result of the dispute over the Budget, the new government introduced resolutions (that would later form the Parliament Bill) to limit the power of the Lords. The Prime Minister, Herbert Henry Asquith, asked Edward VII to create sufficient new Liberal peers to pass the Bill if the Lords rejected it. The King assented, provided that Asquith went back to the polls to obtain an explicit mandate for the constitutional change.

The Lords voted this 1910 Bill down, so Asquith called a second general election in December 1910, and again formed a minority government. Edward VII had died in May 1910, but George V agreed that, if necessary, he would create hundreds of new Liberal peers to neutralise the Conservative majority in the Lords. The Conservative Lords then backed down, and on 10 August 1911, the House of Lords passed the Parliament Act by a narrow 131-114 vote,[8] with the support of some two dozen Conservative peers and eleven of thirteen Lords Spiritual (who normally do not vote).

The Parliament Act was intended as a temporary measure. The preamble states:

Parliament Act 1949

Immediately after the Second World War, the Labour government of Clement Attlee decided to amend the 1911 Act to reduce further the power of the Lords, as a result of their fears that their radical programme of nationalisation would be delayed by the Lords and hence would not be completed within the life of the parliament. The House of Lords did not interfere with nationalisations in 1945 or 1946, but it was feared that the proposed nationalisation of the iron and steel industry would be a bridge too far, so a bill was introduced in 1947 to reduce the time that the Lords could delay bills, from three sessions over two years to two sessions over one year. The Lords attempted to block this change. The Bill was reintroduced in 1948 and again in 1949, before the 1911 Act was finally used to force it through. Since the 1911 Act required a delay over three "sessions", a special short "session" of parliament was introduced in 1948, with a King's Speech on 14 September 1948, and prorogation on 25 October.

The amended Parliament Act was never used in the 1940s or 1950s, possibly because the mere threat of it was enough. The Salisbury convention that the Lords would not block government bills that were mentioned in the government's manifesto dates from this time. Salisbury believed that since, in being returned to power, the Government was given a clear mandate for the policies proposed in its manifesto, it would be improper for the Lords to frustrate such legislation.

Acts passed under the Parliament Act display a modified form of enacting formula:

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows

The usual enacting formula, used on other Acts, also refers to the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and omits the reference to the Parliament Acts.

act 1972

2007-05-28T12:00:00.000-07:00

European Communities Act 1972 (UK)

The European Communities Act (1972 c. 68) is the Act of the United Kingdom Parliament providing for the incorporation of European Community law into the domestic legal order of the United Kingdom. It is not to be confused with the Irish European Communities Act 1972, which did the same thing for the Republic of Ireland.

Its main significance is that (apart from being the instrument whereby the UK was able to accede to the European Union (or 'European Communities' as then termed) it enables under section 2(2) for Government ministers to lay regulations before Parliament to implement required changes to UK law (for example, Decisions of the European Court of Justice and EU Directives.

European Union directive

A directive is a legislative act of the European Union which requires member states to achieve a particular result without dictating the means of achieving that result. It can be distinguished from European Union regulations which are self-executing and do not require any implementing measures. Directives normally leave member states with a certain amount of leeway as to the exact rules to be adopted. Directives can be adopted by means of a variety of legislative procedures depending on subject matter of the directive.

Directives are only binding on the member states to whom they are addressed, which can be just one member state or a group of them. In practice however, with the exception of directives related to the Common Agricultural Policy, directives are addressed to all member states.

If the member state fails to pass the required national legislation, or if the national legislation does not adequately comply with the requirements of the directive, the European Commission can initiate legal action against the member state in the European Court of Justice.

Notwithstanding the fact that directives were not originally thought to be binding before they were implemented by member states, the European Court of Justice developed the doctrine of direct effect where unimplemented directives can actually have direct legal force and in Francovich v. Italy the court found Italy liable for their failure to implement a directive.

If the European Constitution is ratified and enters into force, directives will become known simply as European framework laws.

Enforcement

In practice, with the exception of directives related to the common agricultural policy, directives are addressed to all member states, and specifies a date by which the states must have put the directive into effect. (These dates are either determined by the Council of Ministers at the time of the main agreement, or the twentieth day following that of publication). Individual states often miss these deadlines, and when the deadlines slip badly, the European Commission can and does commence proceedings in the European Court of Justice against the countries involved.

Through its case law, the European Court of Justice has provided guidelines for member state judges on how to deal with cases where directives have not been transposed into national law, or have been transposed incorrectly.

· When national law has multiple possible interpretations, the judge must choose the interpretation that conforms with EU law. This rule also applies to directives not yet transposed into national law.

· In cases against the state or any state body, directives have "direct effect". A state that hasn't transposed a directive on time may not invoke this to its own benefit. "Direct effect" only applies to rules that are sufficiently clear.

· Citizens can sue the state for damages caused because of tardy transposition.

Infractions/Infringements

Where a Member State fails to comply with its obligations under the Treaty – for example, by not correctly transposing a directive (or not doing so on time), or by failing to implement it properly. Infringement cases are taken to the European Court of Justice by the Commission under Article 226 EC for trial if their Reasoned Opinion is not adequately answered.

human rights

2007-05-28T11:53:00.000-07:00

Human Rights Act 1998

The Human Rights Act 1998 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which received Royal Assent on November 9, 1998, and mostly came into force on October 2, 2000. Its aim is to "give further effect" in UK law to the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act makes available in UK courts a remedy for breach of a Convention right, without the need to go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. It also totally abolished the death penalty in UK law (although this was not required by the Convention in force for the UK at that time).

In particular, the Act makes it unlawful for any public body to act in a way which is incompatible with the Convention, unless the wording of an Act of Parliament means they have no other choice. It also requires UK judges take account of decisions of the Strasbourg court, and to interpret legislation, as far as possible, in a way which is compatible with the Convention. However, if it is not possible to interpret an Act of Parliament so as to make it compatible with the Convention, the judges are not allowed to override it. All they can do is to issue a declaration of incompatibility. This declaration does not affect the validity of the Act of Parliament: in that way, the Human Rights Act seeks to maintain the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty (see: Constitution of the United Kingdom). An individual can still take his case to the Strasbourg court as a last resort.

Jurisdiction

The Human Rights Act applies to all public bodies within the United Kingdom, including central government, local authorities, and bodies exercising public functions. It also includes the Courts. However, it does not include Parliament when it is acting in its legislative capacity.

Stronger provisions exist for the devolved Scottish administration under the Scotland Act 1998, which provides that the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament have no power to do anything contrary to the ECHR.

Rights protection under the Act

The Act provides that it is unlawful for a public authority to act in such a way as to contravene Convention rights.[1] For these purposes public authority includes any other person "whose functions are functions of a public nature."[2] It also explicitly includes the Courts.[3] Convention rights includes only those rights specified in section 1 of the Act (these are recited in full in Schedule 1).[4] In the interpretation of those rights the Act provides that the domestic Courts "may" take into account the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.[5]

Section 7 enables any person, with standing, to raise an action against a public authority which has, or proposes to act, in such a Convention contravening manner. A person will have standing to do so provided they would satisfy the "victim test" stipulated by Article 34 of the Convention.[6] This is a more rigorous standard than is ordinarily applied to standing in English, although not Scottish, Judicial Review.

If it is held that the public authority has violated the claimants Convention rights, then the Court is empowered to "grant such relief or remedy, or make such order, within its powers as it considers just and appropriate."[7] This can include an award of damages, although the Act provides additional restrictions on the Court's capacity to make such an award.[8]

However, the Act also provides a defense for public authorities if their Convention violating act is in pursuance of a mandatory obligation imposed upon them by Westminster primary legislation.[9] The Act envisages that this will ordinarily be a difficult standard to meet though since it requires the Courts to read such legislation (and for that matter subordinate legislation) "So far as it is possible to do so...in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights."[10]

Where it is impossible to read primary legislation in a Convention compliant manner, the only sanction available to the Courts is to make a Declaration of Incompatibility in respect of it.[11] The power to do so is restricted to the higher Courts.[12] Such a Declaration has no impact upon the continuing force of the legislation[13] but it is likely to produce public pressure upon the government to remove the incompatibility. It also strengthens the case of a claimant armed with such a decision from the domestic Courts in any subsequent appeal to Strasbourg. In order to provide swift compliance with the Convention the Act allows Ministers to take remedial action to amend even offending primary legislation via subordinate legislation.

Footnotes

1. ^ Section 6(1)

2. ^ Section 6(3)(b)

3. ^ Section 6(3)(a)

4. ^ The full text of Schedule 1 (along with that of the rest of the Act) can be found at the Office of Public Sector Information Website:

5. ^ Section 2

6. ^ Section 7(7)

7. ^ Section 8(1)

8. ^ Cf. sections 8(2)-(5) and Section 9(2)-(3) which provides additional protection to the Courts.

9. ^ Section 6(2).

10. ^ Section 3(1)

11. ^ Section 4

12. ^ Section 4(5) provides that a Declaration of Incompatibility can be made by: the House of Lords, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland by the Court of Appeal or the High Court. And in Scotland by the High Court of Justiciary, when not sitting as a trial court, or the Court of Session. The power is also available to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court.

13. ^ Section 4(6)(a)

14. ^ Section 10(2)

15. ^ Cameron 'could scrap' rights act

scotland act 1998

2007-05-28T11:51:00.001-07:00

Scotland Act 1998

1998 act data protection, 1998 act human right, 1998 act investment workforce

The Scotland Act 1998 (1998 c. 46) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is the Act which established the devolved Scottish Parliament.

It was introduced by the Labour government after there was a majority of 'Yes-Yes' for the creation of a parliament for Scotland with tax varying powers in the Scotland referendum, 1997. The Act creates the Scottish Parliament, sets out how Members of the Scottish Parliament are to be elected, makes some provision about the internal operation of the Parliament (although many issues are left for the Parliament itself to regulate) and sets out the process for the Parliament to consider and pass Bills which become Acts of the Scottish Parliament once they receive Royal Assent. The Act specifically asserts the continued power of the UK Parliament to legislate in respect of Scotland;[1] thereby upholding the concept of Westminster's absolute Parliamentary sovereignty.

The Act also provides for the creation of a Scottish Executive consisting of a First Minister and other Ministers appointed by the Queen with the approval of the Parliament. The Scottish Executive includes the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General for Scotland.

The Act sets out the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. Rather than listing the matters over which the Parliament does have control, it specifies the matters over which it does not. These are known as reserved matters.[2] It further designates a list of statutes which are not amenable to amendment or repeal by the Parliament[3] which includes the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Scotland Act itself. Even when acting within its legislative competence, the Act further constrains the powers of the Parliament by inihibiting it from acting in a manner incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights or European Community law.[4] The same constraints apply to acts of the Scottish Executive.[5]

The Act also sets up mechanisms to resolve disputes over questions about legislative competence of the Parliament and powers of the Executive. The ultimate appeal in such matters lies to the the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It also allows the powers of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive to be adjusted over time by agreement between both Parliaments by means of an Order in Council.

The Act was passed on November 17, 1998, and received royal assent two days later on November 19. The first elections were held in May 1999 and the Scottish Parliament and Executive assumed their full powers on 1 July 1999.

The Act was amended by the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Act 2004 to end the link between the number of MPs at Westminster and the number of constituency MSPs.

wales act 1998

2007-05-28T11:47:00.000-07:00

Government of Wales Act 1998

wales, north wales, johnson and wales, lake wales fl real estate, lake wales real estate, johnson and wales university, new south wales, lake wales

The Government of Wales Act, 1998 (1998 c. 38) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

The long title of the Act is An Act to establish and make provision about the National Assembly for Wales and the offices of Auditor General for Wales and Welsh Administration Ombudsman; to reform certain Welsh public bodies and abolish certain other Welsh public bodies; and for connected purposes. It was passed in 1998 by the Labour government to create a national assembly for Wales.

It transferred most of the powers of the Secretary of State for Wales, and made provision for elections to the Assembly.

Background

The Act led to the establishment of the National Assembly for Wales in 1999, after the referendum held in 1997 which narrowly approved devolution.

wales ~ act

2007-05-28T11:44:00.000-07:00

Government of Wales Act 2006

The Government of Wales Act 2006 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that reforms the National Assembly for Wales and allows further powers to be granted to it more easily. The bill creates a system of government with a separate executive drawn from and accountable to the legislature.

It has the following provisions:

· creates an executive body - Welsh Assembly Government - that is separate from the legislative body, that is, the National Assembly for Wales. The Welsh Assembly Government is therefore altered from being a committee of the National Assembly to being a distinct body

· forbids candidates both contesting constituencies and being on the a regional list

· provides a mechanism for Orders in Council to delegate power from Parliament to the Assembly, which will the give the Assembly powers to make Measures"(Welsh Laws).

· provides for a referendum for further legislature competencies, to be known as "Acts of the Assembly"

· creates a Welsh Seal and a Keeper of the Welsh Seal (the First Minister)

· creates a Welsh Consolidated Fund

· creates the post of Counsel General as a member of the Welsh Assembly Government and its chief legal adviser.

· assigns to the Queen new ceremonial functions of formally appointing Welsh ministers and granting Royal Assent to Acts of the Assembly.

floodings

2007-05-28T11:39:00.000-07:00

Flooding in Bangladesh worsening

The flood situation in northeastern, northern and central Bangladesh has been aggravated further with the inundation of more low-lying areas due to heavy downpours and the onrush of water from upstream sources in India and Nepal. Weather officials do not expect any significant improvement immediately as the pressure of upstream water and local rainfall may intensify further.

According to the Flood Forecasting and Warning Center, the water levels are rising simultaneously in three major river systems. Most rivers, including the Brahmaputra-Jamuna, Ganges-Padma and Meghna, are above danger levels. Out of 85 monitoring stations, 20 points have crossed the danger marks.

According to media reports, about three million people are already marooned by the floods. The deluge washed away hundreds of houses, leaving thousands of families homeless. Crops are under water in all the affected districts, but no reliable estimate of losses was immediately available, although, according to one source, the loss may be 25 percent.

The flood has engulfed the central areas, and many low-lying areas in and around Dhaka, the capital, are under water. Hundreds of schools are closed indefinitely in northeastern Sylhet and northern districts. Many families have taken shelter on boats, highways, schools and government buildings. They face shortages of food and drinking water, as relief agencies cannot reach victims in remote areas. Day laborers are jobless and without wages. People in many places including Haor and Char (swamp and sandbar) areas cannot cook food from lack of fuel and cookers. A fodder crisis is reported from the northern and north-eastern districts. Prices of daily necessities are rising in the affected areas. Railway links between the northern and northeastern districts and the capital are cut off.

Waterborne diseases are spreading fast in 25 flood-affected districts, with Sylhet, Dinajpur, Rangpur, Gaibandha and Sirajganj the worst-hit.

Situation in the Northeast region

Due to torrential rains and water rushing down the Meghalaya Hills and from neighboring Kachar and Karimgonj districts of Assam in neighboring India, the flood situation in greater Sylhet division has worsened. Low-lying areas of Sylhet city are under 60 cm of water.

Situation in the Northern Region

The Brahmaputra and Darla rivers are flowing above danger levels at Chilmari, Bahadurabad, Sirajganj and Aricha by 49 cm, 67 cm, 75 cm and 2 cm respectively. The Darla recorded a further rise by 8 cm at Kurigram and was flowing 91 cm above danger level on 13 July. However, as a welcome sign, the rains have ceased as of 14 July.

Thousands of Kutcha (thatched or mud) houses are damaged, and 50 percent of total population of the area is affected. Educational institutions of the Char (sand bar) area remained closed as they went under water. People are facing a severe crisis of drinking water and food. The government has started to distribute rice and cash.

Weather officials predict that since the monsoon is still very active in the neighboring northeastern states of India, the rains are likely to continue for several more days, thus aggravating the flood downstream in Bangladesh.

On 14 July, an inter-ministerial meeting was held where all concerned ministries and donor representatives were present. According to the meeting, 25 districts are affected by the floods, while the government has allocated food items and cash for the affected people. Government officials said the situationn is still under control, and they have not appealed to the donor community for relief assistance yet.

An RDRS rapid-assessment team reports that 10,000-12,000 families are displaced and have lost their houses either partially or fully. Embankments and roads are damaged in many places. The Amon (summer rice) seedlings and vegetables in the field are damaged. Diarreaheal disease cases have been reported, and there is a scarcity of fodder.

tornado

2007-05-28T11:34:00.000-07:00

Tornado devastates Districts of North-Eastern Bangladesh

ACT members Rangpur Dinajpur Rural Service (RDRS) and Christian Commission for Development in Bangladesh (CCDB) report that twin tornadoes of devastating force swept across Netrakona and Mymenshingh, two north-eastern districts of Bangladesh on the evening of 14 April. Further heavy rains and storms on the night of 18 April have exacerbated the situation. According to media reports, at least 78 people have been killed and about 3,000 injured although this figure may rise further. The giant tornado swept away nearly everything in its wake – razing about 7,000 houses and even uprooting hand tube wells. Corrugated tin roofs crumpled like tinfoil, broken pottery and furniture were strewn everywhere. Many of the injured were hit by tin ripped off the roofs and many others suffered broken bones as the winds hurled them through the air.

The most urgent needs are medical support, emergency food, water, and shelter materials (plastic sheets, tents, utensils etc). The Government has started relief distribution and some army and local medical teams are treating the people for injuries. Police and the paramilitary along with civilian volunteers are busy assisting the victims. A number of NGOs are also working in the area.

CCDB has sent a fact finding team and has distributed about US$ 3,500 worth of relief items from their emergency stock through their partner Basic Development Partners (BDP) operating in the areas.

The affected districts are outside the RDRS working area and as government and other agencies are working there RDRS is not planning any direct emergency assistance at this time but will donate the equivalent of USD 8,600 to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund.

ACT Forum members in Bangladesh RDRS, CCDB, SHEDBOARD, Koinonia and Church of Bangladesh (CoB) are assessing the situation and will keep the ACT CO informed. A Rapid Response Appeal may be forthcoming.

floods hits

2007-05-28T11:32:00.000-07:00

Floods hit China

Geneva, 21 July 2006 - Since 14 July, torrential floods from Tropical Storm Bilis have been affecting parts of southern China. The Xinhua News Agency, reporting on ReliefWeb, said that as of 20 July, the death toll had risen to 228. The news agency, quoting the Ministry of Civil Affairs, said 26.45 million people have been affected in the country’s southern and eastern provinces.

The floods, caused by heavy and long-lasting rainfalls, have hit Hunan, Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Zhejiang, Jiangxi provinces. Some parts of these provinces were still reeling from earlier flooding and storms in late May and June. The latest floods have led to landslides, mud-rock flows and serious casualties.

According to China’s National Natural Disaster Reduction Committee Office, as of 17 July, 2.203 million people had been evacuated from their homes. In terms of material damage, 0.91 million hectares of crops had been damaged, with 0.16 million hectares of totally lost, 175,000 houses destroyed, and 113,000 houses collapsed.

Highways and railway lines have been damaged and flooded, disrupting transportation. Streets in Shaoguang in Guangdong Province have been flooded, with some residences submerged to the third floor. The two largest hospitals in Shaoguang have been flooded.

Additional flooding in areas that were flooded earlier is making relief and rehabilitation work difficult.

China’s Ministry of Civil Affairs began responding in the hardest-hit areas on 15 July and has expanded its response to other areas since then.

The affected areas were expected to be hit by a heat wave in the coming days as the storms subside.

The ACT member in China, The Amity Foundation, is planning to work with its local partners in Hunan and Guangxi to provide emergency assistance such as food, drinking water, clothing, tents, mosquito nets and medicines in the crisis phase. Following the initial response, Amity plans to assist affected people in reconstructing roads, repairing damaged houses and rebuilding schools and other buildings.

The Amity Foundation is preparing a proposal for an appeal to submit to the ACT Coordinating Office.

act

2007-05-28T11:30:00.000-07:00

ACT members to expand response to floods in Indian States

ACT members responding to floods in several Indian states have turned their attention to the flood situation in southern and southwestern districts of Rajasthan, which has worsened since the third week of August. In several villages in the districts of Barmer, Jaiselmer and Udaipur, the rains and subsequent floods have affected thousands of people, their livestock and houses. The floods, described as one of the worst tragedies in the state in recent decades, were triggered by unusually heavy rains in these areas. More than 100 hours of continuous heavy rainfall have made flood-affected villages inaccessible. Barmer district, which normally receives 277 millimeters of rainfall annually on average, has recorded 577 millimeters since August 19.

More than 800,000 of Barmer district’s two million residents are reported to have been affected by the rains. There are reports of large-scale damage to houses and property. 47,000 cattle have died in the floods, according to official sources. According to unconfirmed reports, 5,200 houses are damaged, and crops worth 300 million Indian rupees have been lost.

Floods throughout several Indian states have severely affected millions of people since the second half of July. A Reuters article posted on Reliefweb on August 9 reported that by that time 4,5 million people had been driven from their homes because of floods across the country.

All three ACT members in India are addressing the needs following the floods through ACT Appeal ASIN62. United Evangelical Lutheran Church in India (UELCI) is working in Orissa and parts of Andhra Pradesh. Lutheran World Service India (LWSI) is currently working in parts of Andhra Pradesh. Churches Auxiliary for Social Action (CASA) is responding through relief teams in Maharashtra, Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh.

The ACT Coordinating Office and the ACT members in India are in the process of revising the original flood appeal for India to include a response in Rajasthan as well as expanded activities in Orissa, and expect to share the revision

floods

2007-05-28T11:26:00.000-07:00

Floods hit several Indian states

Low pressure in the Bay of Bengal intensified into a deep depression, causing torrential rains in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh. In addition, the states of Gujarat and Maharashtra have suffered widespread flooding following rains over the last weeks. Many lives have been lost people have drowned, some still trapped in their cars, while others have succumbed to electrical shocks, or have been killed by landslides or by collapsing walls and houses. The floods have also caused widespread damage to property, standing crops, flood control embankments and other basic infrastructure. Thousands have lost their belongings in the swirling floodwaters and are facing a scarcity of food, drinking water, shelter and clothing. Those who have managed to escape to safety are currently deprived of the basic necessities of life. The loss to crops and livestock is massive. In addition, there is extensive damage to the general infrastructure, including that of the road and rail systems. A Reuters article posted on Reliefweb on 9 August reported that 4,5 million people have been driven from their homes.

In Andhra Pradesh, authorities have sought the help of the army to support the ongoing rescue operations along the low-lying areas of the River Godavari. Thousands of people have been left homeless. Though the rains have more or less stopped in Andhra Pradesh, the situation remains grim. The official government estimates are that 103,221 families were affected in 428 villages in the East Godavari district. 3,890 houses were completely damaged and 2,964 houses were partially damaged. Government figures put the death toll in the state due to the flooding at 106.

In Orissa, the flash floods have claimed nearly 100 lives. Some 1,000 cattle have been lost. Standing crops have been destroyed and some 3,000 houses damaged.

In Madhya Pradesh: Burahanpur, Jhabua, Khargon, Padawani and a several other districts have been affected by the floods. 36 people have died, 300 cattle were killed, 5,000 houses completely destroyed, agricultural lands spoiled and water pipelines damaged. People have been evacuated to temporary camps.

In Maharashtra heavy, incessant rains lashed the coastal state at the beginning of August 2006. More than 79 people have died and the toll continues to rise with every passing day. The authorities have put 178 villages on the banks of the River Godavari on high alert, as the water level has risen beyond the danger mark. People are being evacuated with the help of the army, navy and air force. In flood ravaged Sangli, where 12 people have reportedly died, more than 75,000 people were evacuated following floods in river Krishna. Initial reports indicate that at least 67,000 houses have been completely or partly damaged. The extent of the losses will only be assessed over the next few days, as the flood waters have not yet receded in Khammam, West Godavari and East Godavari districts.

In Gujarat heavy rains have continued to lash most of south and central Gujarat, resulting in the overflowing of many rivers and irrigation dams. By the beginning of the week, at least 41 people had died in incidents related to the heavy rains and the resultant floods. The fast flowing water of the Vishwamitra, surging through Vadodra City has entered several of the “slum” areas on its banks. In nearby Padra town, people were evacuated from housing colonies. According to the flood control authorities, about 25,000 people were being evacuated from an area along the Tapti River bank in Surat City and nearby villages following the rise in the water level. Surat and Vadodra cities and districts were the worst hit, due to heavy showers, with authorities warning of further heavy rains. It has been described as the worst flood ever in Surat. Water supply and water resources minister, Narrotam Patel, who is camping in Surat, said this was the worst flood the city had faced in two decades.

All three ACT members in India are assessing the needs following the floods. United Evangelical Lutheran Church in India (UELCI) has sent eight assessment teams to Orissa and parts of Andhra Pradesh and are waiting for their final reports. Lutheran World Service India (LWSI) is assessing the needs in parts of Andhra Pradesh. Churches Auxiliary for Social Action (CASA) has mobilised relief teams in Maharashtra and Gujarat and has sent assessment teams to Andhra Pradesh.

cyclone ~ hits

2007-05-28T11:23:00.000-07:00

Cyclone hits Andhra Pradesh, India

A severe cyclone hit the southern part of the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh early on December 16. According to ACT member Church’s Auxiliary for Social Action (CASA), three districts experienced heavy rains, and coastal areas also faced stormy weather with moderate to heavy rains. Winds reached 120 km per hour, and tidal waves were one to two meters above normal.

CASA reports that more than 8,000 houses were damaged or destroyed. Uprooting of trees, telephone and power lines has been reported from the affected places and traffic on major highways in the south coastal districts has been affected due to water logging.

The storm killed at least 49 people in the Krishna, West Godavari and Guntur districts. Krishna, where 24 people died due to houses collapsing and heavy rains, was the worst affected, followed by West Godavari (11 deaths) and Guntur (14 deaths), officials were reporting on Tuesday evening. While Krishna faced the brunt of the storm, crops of banana, paddy, betel and tobacco were damaged extensively in all three districts.

Affected residents of these areas are currently without basic necessities. Thousands of people have lost their shelter, clothing, livestock and all of their household goods.

ACT members in India – CASA, the United Evangelical Lutheran Churches in India (UELCI) and Lutheran World Service India (LWSI) – have requested US$50,000 from the ACT Rapid Response Fund for their response. CASA will carry out the response by targeting 2,000 of the most-affected families in the areas of Krishna district of Andhra Pradesh with clothing, blankets and kitchen utensils. It will also provide food (rice and lentils) in the form of dry ration kits. UELCI and LWSI have gathered information from Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church (AELC) and others regarding relief needs in the other badly affected district of Guntur and CASA will respond to the needs of the AELC areas in Guntur on behalf of the three ACT members by providing clothing, blankets and utensils to 1,000 families.

tsunami

2007-05-28T11:13:00.000-07:00

Tsunami hits the Solomon Islands

tsunami, tsunami picture, tsunami 2004, tsunami video, tsunami bomb, foto tsunami, japan tsunami, hawaii tsunami, tsunami wave, pacific tsunami warning center, tsunami photo, tsunami earth quake, hawaii tsunami warning, alaska tsunami warning, alaska tsunami

An earthquake registering a magnitude of 8.0 shook the western part of the Pacific Solomon Islands chain on Monday morning (2 April 2007). The first quake was immediately followed by two more with magnitudes of 6.7 and 6.4 at 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) and 345 kilometers (215 miles) respectively, west northwest of the Solomon Islands capital of Honiara on the island of Guadalcanal.

The earthquakes were followed by a tsunami, which destroyed 13 villages in the Solomon Island’s Western Province. The waves varied in height between two and 10 meters in places, sweeping inland for almost half a kilometre, crashing into Gizo shops and homes, and destroying everything in its path as it knocked out power and communication lines. A state of emergency has been declared for the areas of the Western Province, Choiseul Province and North Isabel.

By 4 April the Solomon Islands’ National Disaster Management Office had confirmed that 30 people had lost their lives that 916 houses had been destroyed and that 5,500 people had been displaced across Western and Choiseul Provinces. Many people were still reported as missing, while seven were injured. The scope of the damage is severe, but because of the geographical nature of the islands (remote, far apart and with no proper communication systems) assessments are still sketchy.

Solomon Islands Christian Association (SICA) reports that an Emergency Operations Centre is in place in Gizo. Power and telephone services have been restored, but many shops are still closed. Earth tremors are still being felt in Gizo. Assessment teams are visiting affected communities in Titiana, Paelonge Simbo and Ranongga. The priority needs of the affected communities are food, shelter, water, clothing and utensils. New Zealand has delivered supplies of food, water containers, shelter, medical supplies and personnel, family kits and hurricane lamps.

The Church of the Melanesia (CoM) the Anglican Church in the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu - is responding to the tsunami. Although the church is not equipped with a major disaster response team, CoM staff are undertaking an assessment with the local Anglican Disaster Committee in places such as Munda and Gizo, to determine an appropriate response to the initial emergency and to assess needs related to rehabilitation and recovery efforts. CoM personnel have training and experience in areas that include trauma counseling and pastoral care, engaging with young people at risk, and community leadership development.

The CoM response may initially include food, water, and household items, before entering a phase of rehabilitation of homes, church buildings and other infrastructure.

Reuters reported on Thursday (April 5) that aid workers were battling an outbreak of diarrhoea among people who had fled their homes.

The World Council of Churches Office in the Pacific (WCC OP) with partners in the Pacific are assessing the situation and Rapid Response Funds will be requested within the next few days for an immediate response. WCC OP will work closely with its partners, including the Church of Melanesia, United Church and SICA.

orissa floods

2007-05-26T20:52:00.000-07:00

Orissa Floods

Two depressions over the Bay of Bengal within a fortnight have resulted in continuous heavy rainfall for more than a week in the state of Orissa and adjoining areas of West Bengal, Jharkhand, and North Chatisgarh. This has resulted in all major rivers - Mahandi, Indravati and Brahmani and their tributaries rising above danger levels at many points and inundating vast areas of land and affecting families living near the flooded rivers.

There is a serious flood threat in the state the districts so far affected are Kalahandi, Rayagada, Gajapati, Balangir, Sonepur, Baragarh, Koraput, Cuttack, Nayagarh, Jagatsinghapur, Ganjam, Angul, and Puri. The situation has been exacerbated by the opening of sluice gates in dams and barrages to release the excess water – the opening of gates in the Indravati and Hirakud reservoirs resulted in the flooding of several surrounding villages.

ACT members Churches Auxiliary for Social Action (CASA), the Lutheran World Service India (LWS-India) and the United Evangelical Church in India (UELCI) are on high alert and monitoring the situation.

UELCI has sent four assessment teams to visit the areas affected, meet with local authorities and distribute immediate reliefin the form of packages of dry food using resources available from other appeals. They are planning to respond in the areas of Jagatsinghpur, Nayagarh, Dhenkenal and Koraput with the support of the ACT Alliance.

LWS has also been monitoring the situation and field staff and the community are on full alert in the areas where they are working: Jagatsinghpur, Kendrapara, Jaipur, Puri in the coastal area and Balangir, Kalahandi and Sonepur in the north-west. LWS is in contact with the State Relief Commissioner and local authorities who report that the continuous rain has stopped and the flood water level is slowly receding in north-west Orissa. The government has taken measures to provide dry foods to the marooned people. Should the situation change for the worse, LWS-I teams will move into action and a request for support will be presented to the ACT Alliance.

CASA reports that the staff and disaster mitigation task forces in the districts of Kendrapara, Jagatsinghpur, Cuttack and Khurda are on high alert to monitor and respond to the situation as it develops. People living in one of the more remote areas, fearing a rapid high level flooding, have already moved into two of CASA’s multi purpose shelters. The Orissa Mitigation Authority have sought CASA’s assistance in responding to the flooding and CASA is prepared to meet the food, shelter and clothing needs of 5,000 families. Should the situation worsen they will request support from the ACT Alliance.