If you only ever read one of my posts, read this
The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is being put forward by the government on the basis that it will allow the government to cut red-tape for businesses more quickly and efficiently. But it’s worded so that it will allow the government to make and change the law all by itself, by-passing Parliament completely.
The government is resisting amendments to the bill that would limit its powers to business legislation, saying they would never dream of abusing all that power, we can trust them. This is the argument of all tyrants throughout history.
These quotations are from the House of Commons Standing Committee A:
“The Bill proposes the most fundamental change possible to our constitution, and it has been put forward under the guise of a deregulatory Bill.”
“constituents are concerned about the breadth of clause 1; it gives power to govern by ministerial fiat. The Minister [Mr Murphy} says that he would not do that and he should be trusted. Fair enough, but we do not make law in the belief that one Minister will remain continuously in office. Even someone as ambitious as this Minister cannot believe that he will be a Cabinet Office Minister in, say, 100 years’ time, but this is the sort of law that will not be abolished.”
“One has to ask: are we and the public prepared to accept to accept a situation where the traditional way in which our democracy operates is changed just to make life easy for Ministers and civil servants?”
The Law Commission is currently working on proposals about the rights of cohabitees to occupy property…and provocation as a defence to a murder charge in the context of domestic violence.. Those are all matters that the House would normally expect to debate fully in the Chamber. There is nothing in the Bill to say that these matters should be dealt with under the normal procedures for the House. Will they be dealt with under this order-making power without proper debate?”
“It has been widely said that the Bill is drawn in a way that is unsatisfactory and that there should be protections and safeguards…That is not just the view of the Conservative party. It is also the view of other parties and even of the TUC.”
“We have said many times that we have no problem with a Bill that genuinely deals with deregulatory issues, or even with the intentions that the Minister has explained as his purpose behind part 1 of the Bill. We have a problem, however, with the fact that the words in the Bill do not correspond with what the Minister [Mr Murphy] says are his intentions”
If you want to wade through the full text to find the context of these quotes go to http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmscleg.htm
There’s a rant I’d be proud of regarding this, and which gives links to a number of newspaper articles on the subject here: http://oldmotherchaos.livejournal.com/65547.html?style=mine
If anything is worth writing to your MP about it’s got to be this. If this bill goes through it its current form there will no longer be any point in writing to your MP because it won’t be Parliament that makes laws anymore.
How to (and how not to) write to your MP: http://www.writetothem.com/about-qa#formletters
The government is resisting amendments to the bill that would limit its powers to business legislation, saying they would never dream of abusing all that power, we can trust them. This is the argument of all tyrants throughout history.
These quotations are from the House of Commons Standing Committee A:
“The Bill proposes the most fundamental change possible to our constitution, and it has been put forward under the guise of a deregulatory Bill.”
“constituents are concerned about the breadth of clause 1; it gives power to govern by ministerial fiat. The Minister [Mr Murphy} says that he would not do that and he should be trusted. Fair enough, but we do not make law in the belief that one Minister will remain continuously in office. Even someone as ambitious as this Minister cannot believe that he will be a Cabinet Office Minister in, say, 100 years’ time, but this is the sort of law that will not be abolished.”
“One has to ask: are we and the public prepared to accept to accept a situation where the traditional way in which our democracy operates is changed just to make life easy for Ministers and civil servants?”
The Law Commission is currently working on proposals about the rights of cohabitees to occupy property…and provocation as a defence to a murder charge in the context of domestic violence.. Those are all matters that the House would normally expect to debate fully in the Chamber. There is nothing in the Bill to say that these matters should be dealt with under the normal procedures for the House. Will they be dealt with under this order-making power without proper debate?”
“It has been widely said that the Bill is drawn in a way that is unsatisfactory and that there should be protections and safeguards…That is not just the view of the Conservative party. It is also the view of other parties and even of the TUC.”
“We have said many times that we have no problem with a Bill that genuinely deals with deregulatory issues, or even with the intentions that the Minister has explained as his purpose behind part 1 of the Bill. We have a problem, however, with the fact that the words in the Bill do not correspond with what the Minister [Mr Murphy] says are his intentions”
If you want to wade through the full text to find the context of these quotes go to http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmscleg.htm
There’s a rant I’d be proud of regarding this, and which gives links to a number of newspaper articles on the subject here: http://oldmotherchaos.livejournal.com/65547.html?style=mine
If anything is worth writing to your MP about it’s got to be this. If this bill goes through it its current form there will no longer be any point in writing to your MP because it won’t be Parliament that makes laws anymore.
How to (and how not to) write to your MP: http://www.writetothem.com/about-qa#formletters