Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

aylee said:
But the hysteria present in the initial postings on this thread needs to be avoided.
Click to expand...

You say that you have not read the whole thread, but I can assure you that the initial posting has not been the only one heaving with hysteria.
 
fela fan said:
Well i'm afraid you can't say it's not true, coz it's not been tried so you just don't know.

This is the sort of attitude that allows blair to continue in power. People just saying things won't work. Someone asked for a way forward, i suggested one, and you decided it couldn't work. C'mon man, don't be such a defeatist!

What you need to think about is momemtum. Once a ball starts rolling it can become very hard to stop it until it smashes into its target.

No-one in britain ever gets the ball underway. That's apathy really.
Click to expand...
#
Well I've seen what happens when over a million people take to the streets. both in 1999 and in the stop the war demos. And the answer is nothing happens, except people get it off their chests.
 
ZWord said:
#
Well I've seen what happens when over a million people take to the streets. both in 1999 and in the stop the war demos. And the answer is nothing happens, except people get it off their chests.
Click to expand...


That might be because they've always been organised marches/rallies that are over in a day, as opposed to what happened in Ukraine where everyone just camped out in the city centre for days, if we all did that in Trafalgar square something might 'happen'
 
aylee said:
In reply to the original post, there are a number of points that I'd like to make about the Bill as currently before Parliament [...]
Click to expand...
I had said earlier in the thread that I find it deeply worrying that ministers should be able to change/introduce laws at all without the whole house of commons being given a vote on the issue.

Neither the provision of safe-guards (which may or may not prove effective) nor the fact that such powers have already been introduced reassures me.

I'm against it in principle - full stop.

Here's a question: There may well be a good reason, but I do not understand why a minister cannot bundle a load of much needed law changes into a single bill which can be debated and passed by parliament.
 
ZWord said:
#
Well I've seen what happens when over a million people take to the streets. both in 1999 and in the stop the war demos. And the answer is nothing happens, except people get it off their chests.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well that's not what i was proposing. I talked about a significant number demonstrating each and every weekend. This method brings momemtum into the equation.

After a while, members of the demos can then move it up a gear by bringing in selective civil disobedience. That's what's happening in thailand now, and i'm very confident the leader will eventually have to give up his power.

But do the british people, en masse, care enough?
 
max_freakout said:
That might be because they've always been organised marches/rallies that are over in a day, as opposed to what happened in Ukraine where everyone just camped out in the city centre for days, if we all did that in Trafalgar square something might 'happen'
Click to expand...

yeah, the drunks would piss on your tent.
 
TAE said:
Here's a question: There may well be a good reason, but I do not understand why a minister cannot bundle a load of much needed law changes into a single bill which can be debated and passed by parliament.
Click to expand...

They frequently do. But there is a limit to the amount of primary legislation that Parliament can scrutinise and it doesn't make much difference whether you deal with a thirty-clause Bill on its own or with five other such Bills. While I would like to see proper Parliamentary scrutiny of every word of primary and secondary legislation, that simply isn't realistic in today's age.

What we really need is for the major parties to agree that there will be no major reforms of education, the NHS, the criminal justice system and immigration/asylum for five years, rather than the endless tinkering around in which they indulge at the moment. The combination of the ego of individual politicians and the need for civil servants to justify their existence is a bad one, because it results in endless dicking around in those areas and neglect of others.
 
aylee said:
They frequently do. But there is a limit to the amount of primary legislation that Parliament can scrutinise and it doesn't make much difference whether you deal with a thirty-clause Bill on its own or with five other such Bills. While I would like to see proper Parliamentary scrutiny of every word of primary and secondary legislation, that simply isn't realistic in today's age.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don't see your logic.

Are you saying that Labour are pushing so much new legislation through parliament that parliament is no longer able to keep up and therefore we must transfer this power to ministers?
 
TAE said:
Sorry, I don't see your logic.

Are you saying that Labour are pushing so much new legislation through parliament that parliament is no longer able to keep up and therefore we must transfer this power to ministers?
Click to expand...

There is nothing new at all about ministers making legislation. Acts of Parliament covering all areas of the law make provision for secondary legislation by ministers and other public bodies .... this has been the case for centuries. It is not a new or a New Labour phenomenon.

In many important areas such as social security, only the broadest outline of the rules of entitlement to benefits are set out in the legislation, leaving all the detail to be set out in secondary legislation. Most of the secondary legislation, as I said earlier, is subject to the negative resolution procedure and is not debated at all in Parliament unless enough MPs get upset about something to call for a debate (which does happen fairly frequently).

The point that I'm making is that it simply isn't possible in today's age to have every line of every piece of legislation subjected to three readings in both houses of Parliament, as is ordinarily the case with a public Act of Parliament. It hasn't been possible to do that for decades now.
 
Those opposed might find this interesting...

Fyi:

As part of our ongoing work into the legislative process, the Hansard Society has organised a seminar on:

The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill:
Constitutional Outrage or Sensible Reform?

Thursday 16th March, 12.30 – 1.30pm
House of Commons, Westminster

Kate Jenkins, Vice-Chair of the Hansard Society, will chair a panel consisting of:

* Jim Murphy MP, Cabinet Office Minister responsible for the Bill
* Rt Hon Ken Clarke MP, Chair of the Conservative Party’s Democracy Taskforce
* David Howarth MP
* A representative from Federation of Small Businesses

Ahead of the seminar, the Hansard Society has also published a briefing paper on the bill.

To attend, email parliament@hansard.lse.ac.uk.
Click to expand...
 
aylee said:
There is nothing new at all about ministers making legislation. Acts of Parliament covering all areas of the law make provision for secondary legislation by ministers and other public bodies .... this has been the case for centuries. It is not a new or a New Labour phenomenon.
Click to expand...
That may be the case, but clearly the issue is that we are talking about primary legislation, such as creating new offences, which have never been debated or voted on by parliament. That is surely not the same as saying parliament may, on a case by case basis, decide to make certain aspects of the implementation of a bill the responsibility of some other authority.
 
Carrying ID cards could be made compulsory, smoking in one’s own home could be outlawed and the definition of terrorism altered to make ordinary political protest punishable by life imprisonment. Nor will the Human Rights Act save us since the Bill makes no exception for it.

The Bill gives ministers the power to 'amend repeal or replace' any law passed by Parliament without consulting Parliament. The only limitations are that new crimes cannot be created if the penalty is greater than two years in prison and that it cannot increase taxation. But any other law can be changed, no matter how important.

The Bill, bizarrely, even applies to itself, so that ministers could propose orders to remove the limitations about two-year sentences and taxation. It also includes a few desultory questions (along the lines of “am I satisfied that I am doing the right thing?”) that ministers have to ask themselves before proceeding, all drafted subjectively so that court challenges will fail, no matter how preposterous the minister’s answer.

The potential consequences if this bill gets through parliament are disastrous and an affront to the values of democracy, yet most people know absolutely nothing about it.

The bill can be found in full here:
http://www.publications.parliament.u....1-4.html#j001


http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/...?c=on#comments

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...049791,00.html



sorry for double posting
 
aylee said:
There is nothing new at all about ministers making legislation. Acts of Parliament covering all areas of the law make provision for secondary legislation by ministers and other public bodies .... this has been the case for centuries. It is not a new or a New Labour phenomenon.

In many important areas such as social security, only the broadest outline of the rules of entitlement to benefits are set out in the legislation, leaving all the detail to be set out in secondary legislation. Most of the secondary legislation, as I said earlier, is subject to the negative resolution procedure and is not debated at all in Parliament unless enough MPs get upset about something to call for a debate (which does happen fairly frequently).

The point that I'm making is that it simply isn't possible in today's age to have every line of every piece of legislation subjected to three readings in both houses of Parliament, as is ordinarily the case with a public Act of Parliament. It hasn't been possible to do that for decades now.
Click to expand...
That's very true, but in each case there are clear restrictions on the Minister responsible, with very clar boundaries and they are subject to review. This Bill is far too wide-ranging and allows for the possibility of a far greater level of abuse.
 
Abolition of Parliament Bill

aylee said:
There is nothing new at all about ministers making legislation. Acts of Parliament covering all areas of the law make provision for secondary legislation by ministers and other public bodies .... .
Click to expand...
This is true, as far as it goes. There are Acts of Parliament, that authorise specific ministers or public bodies to make detailed secondary regulations, always within clearly defined limits. The Social Security Regulations are a specific example you mention. However, these law-making powers are always limited by the original empowering Act of Parliament: it is possible, and often happens, that people go to court to correct ministers who have acted out of their power.

This is a completely different piece of legislation. This empowers any minister, to make any regulation, with the same powers as if it were an Act of Parliament. This completely wipes out the distinction between primary Acts of Parliament and secondary legislation. It does more than just that: it wipes out the difference between the legislature and the executive. It wipes out the principle of separation of powers that is the basis of constitutional government.

The principle is that the People in Parliament make laws: and the Prime Minister and cabinet have a limited authority to oversee the civil service, army, police, judiciary, who enforce those laws. If any of the ministers or civil servants overstep their powers, and break the law, you can go to the courts, or ultimately to Parliament, which in law is also a Court, and restrain the executive and civil servants by means of the law.

If this Act is passed, the Prime Minister and cabinet can make any law they wish, and see it enforced. The very few limits to the ministers' law-making powers can be removed by the minister issuing a new order reforming this Act itself.

Since the UK also lacks a constitution or a Human Rights Act that over-rides an Act of Parliament, the ministers would have complete authority to do anything: in principle even to remove judges or juries, close media outlets, alter election results, or withdraw from international treaties. Since the ministers all serve at the pleasure of the prime minister, the Act effectively gives complete legislative and executive power to the prime minister. It's an amazing piece of legislation.

The only question is what power this Act gives relative to the Queen.
 
I wrote to my MP (Keith Hill) anout this and actually got a letter back in the mail. I can't be arsed to type the whole thing out, but here are some highlights:

"There has been a lot of mischief making recently in the media and among certain MPs concerning the Bill. I can assure you that the Bill will not lead to ministers having the power to dictatorially create legislation, unfettered by Parliament"

Thanks for the platitudes. He goes on about what the bill is intended for.
However, the next bit is more interesting.

"What recent reports have conveniently ignored is that there are conditions in place safeguarding when these powers can be used, including guarantees of Parliamentary scrutiny and veto of the use of the power. Specifically...

1. A requirement to consult. For example this would include organisations substantially affected by the proposals such as business, trade unions, charities, etc.

2. A requirement to lay an Explanatory Document before Parliament setting out why the minister wishes to use the power.

3. The minister must express a view of specific better regulations aims where approriate"

So far, so fluffy. 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.
 
....which, logically, you would expect of the PMs own PPS.
It's such a shame that so few of my old gang are left from my 90s Streatham CLP glory days. if they were, I'd consider rejoining solely to cause untold shit. :mad:
 
Crispy said:
So far, so fluffy. 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.
Click to expand...

It's not in the Bill. It's in the procedure for passing Statutory Instruments.

Draft Statutory Instruments are put out for "consultation". Civil servants read or ignore the submissions. Often, it's difficult to find out when consultation opens and the deadline is a few weeks after that. Changes to the text may or may not be made.

Then great wodges of Statutory Instruments are "laid before Parliament" - bunged in the Library, as far as I can tell.

Then:

  • Positive resolution: Parliament votes a wodge into law; or
  • Negative resolution: the wodge becomes law unless MPs raise, and vote for, a resolution that it should not.

(Someone will be along in a moment to nit-pick. That is my understanding of how it works in practice, from the point of view of a citizen who might object to a Statutory Instrument)

Parliament cannot amend a Statutory Instrument.

It is rare for there to be any debate. If this Bill passes, then MPs and lobbyists - and I am thinking here of the "less-dark-side" lobbyists like Liberty and, er, me - will have to change their way of working to force debates.

But with the government having control of Parliamentary time and the ability to make such debates happen on Fridays when MPs want to be home, this will often be a mere token protest.
 
Crispy said:
"4. Parliamentary scrutiny and right to veto"
Click to expand...

The House of Commons Procedure Committee seemed unconvinced that this is the case on March 14th.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmproced/894/894.pdf

(see Section 3: Parliamentary Scrutiny)

There was a report on Today in Parliament last night (Tuesday 21st) questions in the House about the Bill

R4 Listen Again (report begins @ 17mins 06secs)

where Cabinet Office minister, Jim Murphy, said the government were "actively considering how best to put ... an absolute veto on the face of the Bill" (19m30s), but he was asked later by the Conservative spokesman Oliver Heald, "Now the Minister keeps saying that he'll make major changes to this Bill, but when, when will the amendments be tabled?" (20m 38s).

(Hansard)

So it looks like those were not in place at the time your MP wrote his letter, and are still not.
 
Well, I got a reply from my MP, which sets his views out quite firmly.

As promised, here it is:

Tom Brake said:
Thank you for your email about this matter. I apologise for the delay in my reply.

I share your concerns about the impact of this Bill. Liberal Democrat
concerns about this Bill were underlined recently when the following
motion was passed at our Spring Conference in March in Harrogate.

F20b Emergency motion - Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill

Conference deplores proposals in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform
Bill which would give powers to government ministers to alter any law
passed by Parliament, provided that they do not create new crimes with a
penalty greater than two years in prison or increase taxation.

Conference believes that these proposals are a fundamental assault on
deliberation and debate over proposed legislation, on parliamentary
democracy, on the rule of law, and on all the democratic institutions of
this country; and therefore call on parliamentarians of all parties and
both Houses to reject them.

We will continue to express our concerns about this aspect of the Bill.

Yours sincerely

Tom Brake Liberal Democrat MP
Carshalton and Wallington
Click to expand...
 
If a minister decided protesting outside a free speech zone, like outside parliament needed a two year prison sentence what would we do? :mad:

Its ok to sit and talk about affronts to democracy, but even worse what about affronts to basic liberty?
You know its illegal to use a loudhailer near parliament now.... :rolleyes:

Its just the beginning seriously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PR1Berske
Employment Rights Bill
2
Replies
56
Views
2K
hitmouse
hitmouse
Kid_Eternity
New Labour government - legislative agenda
26 27 28 29 30
Replies
896
Views
30K
PR1Berske
PR1Berske
frogwoman
  • Poll
What is the first serious Labour scandal gonna be?
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
191
Views
8K
Serge Forward
Serge Forward
Pickman's model
Parliament passes a 6 counties amnesty law
Replies
8
Views
776
krtek a houby
krtek a houby
tim
Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby's time is up.
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
3K
tim
tim
Back
Top Bottom