Political Crossfire Forums

[Pebble]

Quote:
Fears raised on ministers' power
Red tape
The laws are designed at cutting red tape
Ministers have denied fears measures intended to cut red tape could give them wide-ranging powers to change laws without needing Parliament's approval.

Cambridge University law experts say the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill would give ministers the power to do things such as scrap jury trials.

For the Tories Ken Clarke said it could "sweep away parliamentary procedure and debate on an astonishing scale".

But minister Jim Murphy insisted the bill would have safeguards built in.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme he is thinking of giving House of Commons committees a legal veto over any proposals.

'Astonishing powers'

The bill is intended to allow ministers to axe uncontroversial "red tape" without the time-consuming need for full parliamentary scrutiny.

Mr Clarke, chairman of the Conservatives' democracy task force, said legislation was needed to tackle red tape but said there needed to be explicit safeguards, not just verbal promises from ministers.

Law experts at Cambridge University have also voiced concern about the potential impact of the bill.

The Cambridge University academics, headed by Professor John Spencer QC, warned in a letter to The Times newspaper: "If passed, the government could rewrite almost any act and, in some cases, enact new laws that at present only Parliament can make."

In its current form, the planned new law could allow the government to curtail or abolish jury trial, place people under house arrest, rewrite immigration laws or sack judges, they said.

Competitive edge

Mr Murphy told Today that previous legislation to streamline the burden of regulation had not worked.

The government was taking action to ensure the UK remained competitive, he said.

"I have given assurances that there are more safeguards on the face of this bill than before, that we will have statutory consultation, we will not do anything that is highly controversial and the relevant select committees of the House of Commons will have a veto on every single proposal," he said.

Mr Murphy said he would look at making the veto plan part of the legislation.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4738858.stm

Bearing in mind the current, and i'm fairly sure most, government's penchant for bending the truth a little, can we really trust the people that run our country not to 'misuse' this? Sorry if it seems cynical, but peer reveiw is neccessary, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutley.



The following is a peice of opinion from the Guardian:

Quote: Why is the government seeking the power to pass far-reaching laws without parliament's approval?

Marcel Berlins
Wednesday February 15, 2006
The Guardian

Some have called it the Henry VIII bill; one MP thought Stalin would be a more appropriate dictator to put his name to it. A leading academic refers to it as the "abolition of parliament bill". You get the point. The bill's real title is bland and boring to the point of soporific, which may be why it hasn't been much noticed; but underneath the benign facade of the legislative and regulatory reform bill lurks a machinery that would give the government the power to pass far-reaching laws without the bother of getting the approval of parliament.

On the surface, the bill is aimed at removing regulatory burdens on business by using short-cut procedures which wouldn't require parliamentary debate. The same process would also put into law uncontroversial recommendations by Britain's law commissions, the government's legal thinktanks. All that seems not only reasonable, but positively helpful to the efficiency of law-making. But look again, and Henry VIII comes into the picture. What the government has inserted into the bill is a way of allowing laws to be passed by a minister's order, which bypasses parliament altogether.

Well, so what? We're only talking about minor, technical laws which don't raise any controversial issues, aren't we? No, we emphatically are not. Try this one. It will become possible for the government, by ministerial order, without a debate in parliament, to create new criminal offences, punishable with less than two years imprisonment. It could also, according to Cambridge law professor John Spencer (who is not alone in his analysis), introduce house-arrest, give the police stronger powers of arrest and interrogation, set up new courts, and in effect re-write the rules on immigration, nationality, divorce, inheritance and the appointment of judges. Yes, there are safeguards written into the bill supposedly to prevent this sort of dictatorial behaviour, but my experience of safeguards is that they look better on the page than they perform in practice.

OK, you say, the government may have the legal power to do all those things, but is it seriously being suggested that it will really use such methods to pass laws it doesn't feel like putting to parliament? On the whole, no - and yet, in our current overcharged political climate, it is not too fanciful to imagine the government using every procedural trick to impose laws on the quiet, rather than face a parliamentary storm.

What bothers me most is that the government wants these powers in the first place. They are constitutionally dangerous, giving to the executive what should be a function of the legislature. And they are unnecessary. It would not have been difficult to achieve the bill's admirable, limited objectives without arming ministers with such questionable, wide-ranging powers. So why is the government so insistent on keeping the Henry VIII provisions if it doesn't intend on using them?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1709926,00.html


If you look through the draft bill (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/111/06111.1-4.html#j001) you can see that it actually has a lot of scope for misuse, whilst the bill may be 'intended' for use with minor orders, it seems that it could be used for further purposes.

All in all it doesn't look good in my opinion, a further move towards more authoritarian government from Labour.

Thoughts?

[Lord Hargreaves]

Indeed pretty characteristic of New Labour - parliament is treated as a mere annoyance in their mission to "improve" the country. We'll have to see whether this actually rather astonishing bill gets the attention of the Tories - pray it does.

[Snow Patrol]

Yet more horrible legislation, what's the point of having democratic institutions if you have almost carte blanch means of simply bypassing them, Ken Livingstone being suspended by an unelected Quango is another instance. I don't like this at all.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Snow Patrol wrote: Yet more horrible legislation, what's the point of having democratic institutions if you have almost carte blanch means of simply bypassing them, Ken Livingstone being suspended by an unelected Quango is another instance. I don't like this at all.

I totally agree, although in Ken's case I'm more than willing to go against principle and support his suspension, just because he is such a stupid arse

[Pebble]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Snow Patrol wrote: Yet more horrible legislation, what's the point of having democratic institutions if you have almost carte blanch means of simply bypassing them, Ken Livingstone being suspended by an unelected Quango is another instance. I don't like this at all.

I totally agree, although in Ken's case I'm more than willing to go against principle and support his suspension, just because he is such a stupid arse

Why do you hate him, just out of interest?

He does have a knack for polarising opinions.