The 'abolition of Parliament bill': New Labour's madness - the law-is-an-assylum

[onemonkey]

<blockquote> FOR THE ATTENTION OF:

Tessa Jowell MP
Dulwich and West Norwood

Sunday 2 April 2006
OneMonkey
London
SE24

Dear Tessa Jowell,

The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill seems like a very dangerous and ill-conceived piece of legislation. I do not go so far as to think it malicious but when a government decides to give itself what are potential extremely far-reaching new powers I think it needs to give a better excuse than the legistlative inefficiency of the parliamentary system.

I approve of the idea of 'cutting red tape' but had rather this was done with pinking-shears than the chainsaw that this bill seems to represent. And granting ministers and their appointees the power to change laws as they see fit and without account seems just as likely to increase regulation as to reduce it. After all who introduced the red tape in the first place? Surely, it was this and previous governments and so giving this and future governments unchecked power to make new laws is a topsy-turvy way of dealing with the failings of democracy.

I oppose this bill in principle but even in practice I find it hard to believe the government's stated reasons for the bill while they refuse to include the strong safeguards that such a potentially dangerous law requires. Why is there no 'sunset clause'? Why do ministers need the power to create new criminal offenses? Why are human rights and defence measures not included? Why is constitutional law not excluded from amendment without parliamentary scrunity? In particular, why is the bill itself not excluded from such changes?

Yours sincerely, Onemonkey

feel free to amend and send a version of this to your own mp..

http://www.writetothem.com/

 

[Brainaddict]

However...

"4. Parliamentary scrutiny and right to veto"

Now I didn't spot that when I was reading the bill. If it really is there, then my criticism might wane a bit.

He then goes on with two paragraphs of pro-business "effective and targeted regulation" etc. with a "while protecting the hard-won standards for working people that Labour has secured" for old time's sake.

I'm pleased that the guy took the time to write back, but he is obviously following the party line on this one.

I got that same letter back from him, full of wanky politico/civil service-speak. I think the point to make is that the 'right to veto' is not at all the same as having proper parliamentary debate as legislation is formed. It would imo leave loads of room for the government to sneak stuff under the radar of parliament.
As for the 'scrutiny' - I wonder how much of what gets laid before parliament for 'scrutiny' even gets read. If we're lucky there may be a committee of MPs and/or Lords to examine the results of the ministerial orders, but again it's not at all the same as full parliamentary debate, and such committees are often very busy and don't have time to look into detail.

It may be that 'abolition of parliament' is a bit strong (though catchy and I like it), but at the very least its trying to minimise the influence and effectiveness of parliament.

Cunts.

That means you too Keith Hill

 

[TAE]

...at the very least its trying to minimise the influence and effectiveness of parliament.

Well indeed that is the whole point of the bill: To cut down on parliamentry involvement.

How they can say that there are sufficient safeguards is beyond me. Parliament, the readings, the votes, etc, ARE the safeguards. Take that away, and you do not have 'sufficient safeguards'.

Essentially they are claiming that parliament cannot be expected to fully consider every law that ministers might want to pass.

To which I say: Why on earth not?!

 

[TAE]

The bill is being debated in the commons right now.

It's being shown on the Parliament Channel.

And the commons is virtually empty.