Lord James of Blackheath Portrait

Lord James of Blackheath

Conservative - Life peer

Became Member: 9th June 2006


Lord James of Blackheath is not a member of any APPGs
Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee
23rd Nov 2006 - 8th Apr 2010
Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
23rd Nov 2006 - 8th Apr 2010
Crossrail Bill
17th Jan 2008 - 26th Nov 2008


Division Voting information

During the current Parliament, Lord James of Blackheath has voted in 244 divisions, and 8 times against the majority of their Party.

2 Feb 2021 - Trade Bill - View Vote Context
Lord James of Blackheath voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 40 Conservative Aye votes vs 165 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 359 Noes - 188
7 Dec 2020 - Conduct Committee Report - View Vote Context
Lord James of Blackheath voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 12 Conservative No votes vs 147 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 408 Noes - 24
9 Nov 2020 - United Kingdom Internal Market Bill - View Vote Context
Lord James of Blackheath voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 44 Conservative No votes vs 147 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 165 Noes - 433
9 Nov 2020 - United Kingdom Internal Market Bill - View Vote Context
Lord James of Blackheath voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 38 Conservative No votes vs 134 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 148 Noes - 407
23 Nov 2021 - Armed Forces Bill - View Vote Context
Lord James of Blackheath voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 6 Conservative Aye votes vs 169 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 219 Noes - 173
22 Feb 2022 - Procedure and Privileges Committee - View Vote Context
Lord James of Blackheath voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 8 Conservative Aye votes vs 94 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 144 Noes - 133
6 Apr 2022 - Elections Bill - View Vote Context
Lord James of Blackheath voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 3 Conservative Aye votes vs 155 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 199 Noes - 170
22 Apr 2024 - Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill - View Vote Context
Lord James of Blackheath voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 1 Conservative Aye votes vs 188 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 240 Noes - 211
View All Lord James of Blackheath Division Votes

Debates during the 2019 Parliament

Speeches made during Parliamentary debates are recorded in Hansard. For ease of browsing we have grouped debates into individual, departmental and legislative categories.

Sparring Partners
Baroness Barker (Liberal Democrat)
Liberal Democrat Lords Spokesperson (Voluntary Sector)
(1 debate interactions)
View All Sparring Partners
Department Debates
Cabinet Office
(2 debate contributions)
HM Treasury
(2 debate contributions)
Scotland Office
(1 debate contributions)
Department for Transport
(1 debate contributions)
View All Department Debates
Legislation Debates
Lord James of Blackheath has not made any spoken contributions to legislative debate
View all Lord James of Blackheath's debates

Lords initiatives

These initiatives were driven by Lord James of Blackheath, and are more likely to reflect personal policy preferences.


Lord James of Blackheath has not introduced any legislation before Parliament

Lord James of Blackheath has not co-sponsored any Bills in the current parliamentary sitting


Latest 7 Written Questions

(View all written questions)
Written Questions can be tabled by MPs and Lords to request specific information information on the work, policy and activities of a Government Department
16th May 2022
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to direct the Serious Fraud Office to review its handling of the case of Tom Hayes; and, further to the judgment of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in United States V. DB Group Services (UK) Limited (and Deutsche Bank AG) which found that the rigging of Libor interest rates was not against the rules, whether they will ask the Criminal Cases Review Commission to reconsider its decision not to refer Tom Hayes’s case back to the Court of Appeal.

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) is an operationally independent body. The Attorney General is responsible for safeguarding the independent decision making of the SFO, to maintain this independence the Attorney General cannot overturn a decision reached by the SFO in a particular case.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) is an independent arm’s length body who consider cases where people believe they have been wrongly convicted or wrongly sentenced. It would be inappropriate for the Government or the SFO to ask the CCRC to reconsider any decision they have made, including in the case of Tom Hayes.

30th Mar 2023
To ask His Majesty's Government whether the Coronation Oath to be sworn by His Majesty King Charles III will require him to maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant reformed religion established by law, and to preserve the rights and privileges of the Church and clergy.

The Coronation Oath Act 1688 requires that the Sovereign take the oath at his or her Coronation, and the text of the oath is set out in the Act. The precise form of words has been varied over successive coronations to reflect changes to the constitutional position. Except for one instance, the changes to the oath have been made without primary legislation - see the statement [1] of Sir Winston Churchill to the House of Commons in February 1953 (HC Deb 25 February 1953 vol 511 cc2091-3).

The text of the Oath will be published in due course and Parliament will be updated on any changes to the wording.

[1] CORONATION OATH CHANGES HC Deb 25 February 1953 vol 511 cc2091-32091

§The Prime Minister

I should now like to make my statement in reply to Question No. 45.

The terms of the Coronation Oath were first prescribed by the Act 1 William and Mary, chapter 6. Since then its terms have been changed at least five times. On one occasion only has the change had legislative sanction, namely the change which was introduced as a result of the Act of Union with Scotland. The Treaty of Union had provided that in Scotland the religion professed by the people of Scotland should be preserved to them and confirmed by every King on his accession, and it was thought proper that similar provision should be made for the protection of the English Church in England. The Coronation Oath was altered and enlarged accordingly.

For the many subsequent changes, large or small, which have been made in the terms of the Oath there was no legislative sanction. They were made at various times, and, in particular, after the Act of Union with Ireland, after the Disestablishment of the Irish Church, and also after the passing of the Statute of Westminster. On the last occasion the question whether the changes that were necessary to meet the new constitutional position could be made without an Act of Parliament was carefully considered. and the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers of the day advised that they could.

I am advised by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor that this opinion was clearly correct, and that the changes now proposed, which are, perhaps, less substantial than those made in 1937, but are required to meet the new constitutional position created by the Indian Independence Act, 1947, and other statutes, can also be made without legislative sanction.

Her Majesty's Government propose to follow this long line of precedents. To accept the view that changes in the terms of the Oath which are necessary to reconcile it with a changed constitutional 2092position cannot be made except with the authority of an Act of Parliament would be to cast doubt upon the validity of the Oath administered to every Sovereign of this country since George I.

If, as I am advised, the Coronation Oath can be lawfully administered in the terms now proposed, no useful purpose would be served by legislation. It must be remembered that at Westminster the Queen will be crowned Queen not only of the United Kingdom, but also of other self-governing countries of the Commonwealth. The form of Oath now proposed has been put to each of these countries and none has raised any objection, or has suggested that it is necessary to pass legislation in its own Parliament or in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it would not be possible in the time now remaining before the Coronation to arrange for legislation to be passed by the Commonwealth countries concerned.

§Mr. Attlee

May I say, having had some experience of these difficulties, that I think it is extremely satisfactory that agreement has been obtained throughout the Commonwealth on this Oath, and that we should be well advised to allow this to proceed without legislation?

§Mr. E. Fletcher

May 1, with respect. put this to the Prime Minister? While no one would wish to throw doubt on the validity of the Coronation Oaths in the past, in view of the fact that the Coronation Oath is a Parliamentary creation, and is intended as a limitation on the Prerogative, is it not desirable, though it may be inconvenient, that any changes that are proposed this year should have legislative sanction, for which, I am sure, there would be no difficulty in making the appropriate arrangements on a non-controversial basis? It is a matter which affects the rights of Parliament, and not merely the rights of the Executive.

§The Prime Minister

I think those important and weighty points have been covered by the answer which I have given to the House.

§Mr. Healy

Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has considered the speech of an important member of the Irish Government in regard to this matter?

2093

§The Prime Minister

is the hon. Gentleman speaking for the Irish Government of Northern Ireland or for the Eire Government, I believe it is—the Government of the Republic?

§Mr. Healy

The official name is the Government of Ireland, not the Government of Northern Ireland, which is a very small part of Ireland.

§Mr. Emrys Hughes

Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a strong feeling in Scotland about the Oath being taken to a Queen Elizabeth II on the ground of historical inaccuracy? In view of his great claim to historical accuracy himself, will he not do something' to meet this very strong resentment in Scotland?

§The Prime Minister

I shall be very glad to hear from the hon. Member if he will put his question in the pillar box.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
30th Mar 2023
To ask His Majesty's Government whether the Coronation Oath to be sworn by His Majesty King Charles III will require him to use his power to cause law and justice in mercy to be executed in all his judgments.

The Coronation Oath Act 1688 requires that the Sovereign take the oath at his or her Coronation, and the text of the oath is set out in the Act. The precise form of words has been varied over successive coronations to reflect changes to the constitutional position. Except for one instance, the changes to the oath have been made without primary legislation - see the statement [1] of Sir Winston Churchill to the House of Commons in February 1953 (HC Deb 25 February 1953 vol 511 cc2091-3).

The text of the Oath will be published in due course and Parliament will be updated on any changes to the wording.

[1] CORONATION OATH CHANGES HC Deb 25 February 1953 vol 511 cc2091-32091

§The Prime Minister

I should now like to make my statement in reply to Question No. 45.

The terms of the Coronation Oath were first prescribed by the Act 1 William and Mary, chapter 6. Since then its terms have been changed at least five times. On one occasion only has the change had legislative sanction, namely the change which was introduced as a result of the Act of Union with Scotland. The Treaty of Union had provided that in Scotland the religion professed by the people of Scotland should be preserved to them and confirmed by every King on his accession, and it was thought proper that similar provision should be made for the protection of the English Church in England. The Coronation Oath was altered and enlarged accordingly.

For the many subsequent changes, large or small, which have been made in the terms of the Oath there was no legislative sanction. They were made at various times, and, in particular, after the Act of Union with Ireland, after the Disestablishment of the Irish Church, and also after the passing of the Statute of Westminster. On the last occasion the question whether the changes that were necessary to meet the new constitutional position could be made without an Act of Parliament was carefully considered. and the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers of the day advised that they could.

I am advised by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor that this opinion was clearly correct, and that the changes now proposed, which are, perhaps, less substantial than those made in 1937, but are required to meet the new constitutional position created by the Indian Independence Act, 1947, and other statutes, can also be made without legislative sanction.

Her Majesty's Government propose to follow this long line of precedents. To accept the view that changes in the terms of the Oath which are necessary to reconcile it with a changed constitutional 2092position cannot be made except with the authority of an Act of Parliament would be to cast doubt upon the validity of the Oath administered to every Sovereign of this country since George I.

If, as I am advised, the Coronation Oath can be lawfully administered in the terms now proposed, no useful purpose would be served by legislation. It must be remembered that at Westminster the Queen will be crowned Queen not only of the United Kingdom, but also of other self-governing countries of the Commonwealth. The form of Oath now proposed has been put to each of these countries and none has raised any objection, or has suggested that it is necessary to pass legislation in its own Parliament or in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it would not be possible in the time now remaining before the Coronation to arrange for legislation to be passed by the Commonwealth countries concerned.

§Mr. Attlee

May I say, having had some experience of these difficulties, that I think it is extremely satisfactory that agreement has been obtained throughout the Commonwealth on this Oath, and that we should be well advised to allow this to proceed without legislation?

§Mr. E. Fletcher

May 1, with respect. put this to the Prime Minister? While no one would wish to throw doubt on the validity of the Coronation Oaths in the past, in view of the fact that the Coronation Oath is a Parliamentary creation, and is intended as a limitation on the Prerogative, is it not desirable, though it may be inconvenient, that any changes that are proposed this year should have legislative sanction, for which, I am sure, there would be no difficulty in making the appropriate arrangements on a non-controversial basis? It is a matter which affects the rights of Parliament, and not merely the rights of the Executive.

§The Prime Minister

I think those important and weighty points have been covered by the answer which I have given to the House.

§Mr. Healy

Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has considered the speech of an important member of the Irish Government in regard to this matter?

2093

§The Prime Minister

is the hon. Gentleman speaking for the Irish Government of Northern Ireland or for the Eire Government, I believe it is—the Government of the Republic?

§Mr. Healy

The official name is the Government of Ireland, not the Government of Northern Ireland, which is a very small part of Ireland.

§Mr. Emrys Hughes

Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a strong feeling in Scotland about the Oath being taken to a Queen Elizabeth II on the ground of historical inaccuracy? In view of his great claim to historical accuracy himself, will he not do something' to meet this very strong resentment in Scotland?

§The Prime Minister

I shall be very glad to hear from the hon. Member if he will put his question in the pillar box.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
30th Mar 2023
To ask His Majesty's Government whether the Coronation Oath to be sworn by His Majesty King Charles III will require him to promise and swear to govern according to statute and custom.

The Coronation Oath Act 1688 requires that the Sovereign take the oath at his or her Coronation, and the text of the oath is set out in the Act. The precise form of words has been varied over successive coronations to reflect changes to the constitutional position. Except for one instance, the changes to the oath have been made without primary legislation - see the statement [1] of Sir Winston Churchill to the House of Commons in February 1953 (HC Deb 25 February 1953 vol 511 cc2091-3).

The text of the Oath will be published in due course and Parliament will be updated on any changes to the wording.

[1] CORONATION OATH CHANGES HC Deb 25 February 1953 vol 511 cc2091-32091

§The Prime Minister

I should now like to make my statement in reply to Question No. 45.

The terms of the Coronation Oath were first prescribed by the Act 1 William and Mary, chapter 6. Since then its terms have been changed at least five times. On one occasion only has the change had legislative sanction, namely the change which was introduced as a result of the Act of Union with Scotland. The Treaty of Union had provided that in Scotland the religion professed by the people of Scotland should be preserved to them and confirmed by every King on his accession, and it was thought proper that similar provision should be made for the protection of the English Church in England. The Coronation Oath was altered and enlarged accordingly.

For the many subsequent changes, large or small, which have been made in the terms of the Oath there was no legislative sanction. They were made at various times, and, in particular, after the Act of Union with Ireland, after the Disestablishment of the Irish Church, and also after the passing of the Statute of Westminster. On the last occasion the question whether the changes that were necessary to meet the new constitutional position could be made without an Act of Parliament was carefully considered. and the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers of the day advised that they could.

I am advised by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor that this opinion was clearly correct, and that the changes now proposed, which are, perhaps, less substantial than those made in 1937, but are required to meet the new constitutional position created by the Indian Independence Act, 1947, and other statutes, can also be made without legislative sanction.

Her Majesty's Government propose to follow this long line of precedents. To accept the view that changes in the terms of the Oath which are necessary to reconcile it with a changed constitutional 2092position cannot be made except with the authority of an Act of Parliament would be to cast doubt upon the validity of the Oath administered to every Sovereign of this country since George I.

If, as I am advised, the Coronation Oath can be lawfully administered in the terms now proposed, no useful purpose would be served by legislation. It must be remembered that at Westminster the Queen will be crowned Queen not only of the United Kingdom, but also of other self-governing countries of the Commonwealth. The form of Oath now proposed has been put to each of these countries and none has raised any objection, or has suggested that it is necessary to pass legislation in its own Parliament or in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it would not be possible in the time now remaining before the Coronation to arrange for legislation to be passed by the Commonwealth countries concerned.

§Mr. Attlee

May I say, having had some experience of these difficulties, that I think it is extremely satisfactory that agreement has been obtained throughout the Commonwealth on this Oath, and that we should be well advised to allow this to proceed without legislation?

§Mr. E. Fletcher

May 1, with respect. put this to the Prime Minister? While no one would wish to throw doubt on the validity of the Coronation Oaths in the past, in view of the fact that the Coronation Oath is a Parliamentary creation, and is intended as a limitation on the Prerogative, is it not desirable, though it may be inconvenient, that any changes that are proposed this year should have legislative sanction, for which, I am sure, there would be no difficulty in making the appropriate arrangements on a non-controversial basis? It is a matter which affects the rights of Parliament, and not merely the rights of the Executive.

§The Prime Minister

I think those important and weighty points have been covered by the answer which I have given to the House.

§Mr. Healy

Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has considered the speech of an important member of the Irish Government in regard to this matter?

2093

§The Prime Minister

is the hon. Gentleman speaking for the Irish Government of Northern Ireland or for the Eire Government, I believe it is—the Government of the Republic?

§Mr. Healy

The official name is the Government of Ireland, not the Government of Northern Ireland, which is a very small part of Ireland.

§Mr. Emrys Hughes

Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a strong feeling in Scotland about the Oath being taken to a Queen Elizabeth II on the ground of historical inaccuracy? In view of his great claim to historical accuracy himself, will he not do something' to meet this very strong resentment in Scotland?

§The Prime Minister

I shall be very glad to hear from the hon. Member if he will put his question in the pillar box.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
30th Mar 2023
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they expect the Coronation Oath to be sworn by His Majesty King Charles III to differ from that sworn by Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II; if so, (1) in what ways, and (2) whether an amendment to the Coronation Oath Act 1688 will be required; and whether they will publish the wording of the Oath to be sworn by King Charles.

The Coronation Oath Act 1688 requires that the Sovereign take the oath at his or her Coronation, and the text of the oath is set out in the Act. The precise form of words has been varied over successive coronations to reflect changes to the constitutional position. Except for one instance, the changes to the oath have been made without primary legislation - see the statement [1] of Sir Winston Churchill to the House of Commons in February 1953 (HC Deb 25 February 1953 vol 511 cc2091-3).

The text of the Oath will be published in due course and Parliament will be updated on any changes to the wording.

[1] CORONATION OATH CHANGES HC Deb 25 February 1953 vol 511 cc2091-32091

§The Prime Minister

I should now like to make my statement in reply to Question No. 45.

The terms of the Coronation Oath were first prescribed by the Act 1 William and Mary, chapter 6. Since then its terms have been changed at least five times. On one occasion only has the change had legislative sanction, namely the change which was introduced as a result of the Act of Union with Scotland. The Treaty of Union had provided that in Scotland the religion professed by the people of Scotland should be preserved to them and confirmed by every King on his accession, and it was thought proper that similar provision should be made for the protection of the English Church in England. The Coronation Oath was altered and enlarged accordingly.

For the many subsequent changes, large or small, which have been made in the terms of the Oath there was no legislative sanction. They were made at various times, and, in particular, after the Act of Union with Ireland, after the Disestablishment of the Irish Church, and also after the passing of the Statute of Westminster. On the last occasion the question whether the changes that were necessary to meet the new constitutional position could be made without an Act of Parliament was carefully considered. and the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers of the day advised that they could.

I am advised by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor that this opinion was clearly correct, and that the changes now proposed, which are, perhaps, less substantial than those made in 1937, but are required to meet the new constitutional position created by the Indian Independence Act, 1947, and other statutes, can also be made without legislative sanction.

Her Majesty's Government propose to follow this long line of precedents. To accept the view that changes in the terms of the Oath which are necessary to reconcile it with a changed constitutional 2092position cannot be made except with the authority of an Act of Parliament would be to cast doubt upon the validity of the Oath administered to every Sovereign of this country since George I.

If, as I am advised, the Coronation Oath can be lawfully administered in the terms now proposed, no useful purpose would be served by legislation. It must be remembered that at Westminster the Queen will be crowned Queen not only of the United Kingdom, but also of other self-governing countries of the Commonwealth. The form of Oath now proposed has been put to each of these countries and none has raised any objection, or has suggested that it is necessary to pass legislation in its own Parliament or in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it would not be possible in the time now remaining before the Coronation to arrange for legislation to be passed by the Commonwealth countries concerned.

§Mr. Attlee

May I say, having had some experience of these difficulties, that I think it is extremely satisfactory that agreement has been obtained throughout the Commonwealth on this Oath, and that we should be well advised to allow this to proceed without legislation?

§Mr. E. Fletcher

May 1, with respect. put this to the Prime Minister? While no one would wish to throw doubt on the validity of the Coronation Oaths in the past, in view of the fact that the Coronation Oath is a Parliamentary creation, and is intended as a limitation on the Prerogative, is it not desirable, though it may be inconvenient, that any changes that are proposed this year should have legislative sanction, for which, I am sure, there would be no difficulty in making the appropriate arrangements on a non-controversial basis? It is a matter which affects the rights of Parliament, and not merely the rights of the Executive.

§The Prime Minister

I think those important and weighty points have been covered by the answer which I have given to the House.

§Mr. Healy

Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has considered the speech of an important member of the Irish Government in regard to this matter?

2093

§The Prime Minister

is the hon. Gentleman speaking for the Irish Government of Northern Ireland or for the Eire Government, I believe it is—the Government of the Republic?

§Mr. Healy

The official name is the Government of Ireland, not the Government of Northern Ireland, which is a very small part of Ireland.

§Mr. Emrys Hughes

Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a strong feeling in Scotland about the Oath being taken to a Queen Elizabeth II on the ground of historical inaccuracy? In view of his great claim to historical accuracy himself, will he not do something' to meet this very strong resentment in Scotland?

§The Prime Minister

I shall be very glad to hear from the hon. Member if he will put his question in the pillar box.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
15th Jan 2020
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any agreements have been made with the EU about British participation in (1) the establishment of a European Defence Union, (2) any military command and control procedures, (3) the future of Five Eyes, (4) the procurement of military equipment from an EU-wide organisation, and (5) the transfer of nuclear technology licensed to the UK by the United States; if so, what are the details of any such agreements; and whether any such agreements are separate to any agreements relating to the UK’s departure from the EU.

The UK has no agreement with the EU about British participation in the establishment of a 'European Defence Union'.

The Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration provide the option, but no obligation, for the UK to continue to contribute to CSDP operations and missions on a voluntary basis, and where of benefit to UK interests. This does not undermine the UK's sovereignty, our command or control of our Armed Forces nor does it oblige us to participate in a 'defence union' or any EU defence initiatives.

The UK will retain full sovereign control over its defence, intelligence services and decision-making after leaving the EU. The UK will also retain control over the deployment of its Armed Forces and their equipment. Any future security partnership negotiated with the EU would reflect this position.

The UK currently has no agreements with the EU on military command and control procedures other than those in the Withdrawal Agreement referring to continued participation in CSDP operations and missions during the Implementation Period. UK personnel remain under UK sovereign command at all times.

The UK does not have any agreements with the EU on British participation in the 'Five Eyes' community. Any future relationship agreement with the EU will not undermine our partnership with the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The intelligence cooperation between these 'Five Eyes' partners is the broadest, deepest and most advanced of any grouping of nations and we are committed to maintaining it.

The UK has not entered into any agreements with the EU to participate in the procurement of military equipment from EU-wide organisations. There are no agreements with the EU about British participation in transfer of nuclear technology licensed to the UK by the US.

12th Oct 2022
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they will take to ensure that the Criminal Cases Review Commission has sufficient resources to speed up its consideration of cases.

In the last two years, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has increased the Criminal Cases Review Commission’s (CCRC) budget from £6.015m in 2020/21 to £6.998m this year. This represents an increase of £983,000 or 16% of the 2020/21 budget. A capital budget totalling £1.58m has also been provided to improve its infrastructure, so that it can meet its targets on timeliness of case reviews.

The funding allocation to the CCRC is reviewed each year, in consultation with the CCRC itself, as part of setting budgets so the CCRC can continue to carry out its statutory functions effectively.