WRITTEN ON May 5th, 2006 BY William Heath AND STORED IN Uncategorized
Christina Hughes writes on the Friends network
The Government tabled significant amendments to the Bill yesterday…Clauses 1 and 2 of the original bill are being dropped and replaced.The new clause 1 says, basically, that the purpose of a provision made by a Minister under clause 1 must be to remove or reduce burdens resulting from legislation.
Similarly, the new clause 2 says that the purpose of a provision introduced under clause 2 is to ensure that regulatory functions are exercised so as to comply with particular principles (namely, that regulatory activities “should be carried out in a way which is transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent; and that regulatory activities should be targeted onlyat cases in which action is needed”).
The earlier version of the Bill allowed a Minister to introduce a provision to implement recommendations of a UK Law Commission. This is still there, but moved into a separate clause. Some Law Commission recommendations are uncontentious; some are contentious.
The provision which spells out that criminal penalties may be introduced or increased (up to certain limits) by a provision made by a Minister under this Bill is still there.
The length of time during which either the Commons or the Lords can require a particular procedure to be adopted for the consideration of a provision under the Bill is increased from 21 days to 30 days.
There is a new power of either House to halt a provision within a 40 day period.
There is a new power of a committee of either House to halt a provision on certain limited grounds.The link takes you to the Cabinet Office page, which itself provides a link to the amendments here.
Seems more sensible. Why the outcry before? Because there’s a loss of trust.
3 Responses to “Rationalisation regulations (was “Abolition of Parliament”)”
Owen sends in Guardian comment (via ID list)
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jenni_russell/2006/05/post_66.html
An act for parliament
Amid yesterday’s elections, the government slipped out the news that it
had climbed down over the legislative and regulatory reform bill.
May 5, 2006 11:58AM
The senior officer of the house I talked to yesterday evening was
definitive. “It’s a climbdown” he said. “They’ve listened, and they’ve
given in.” He was talking about the legislative and regulatory reform
bill, a measure that would have given the government unprecedented
powers to change almost any law by order, rather than by having to argue
for it on the floor of each house. After three months of increasing
concern and unease about the bill, among MPs, the media and the public,
the government has finally given way and written amendments into the
bill that severely restrict its power. They chose to slip their
announcement out on the Cabinet Office website, on the day of the local
elections, which guaranteed that there would be little coverage of the
issue.
When the bill was first presented in January, it was assumed to be an
innocuous measure to cut red tape, without having to waste valuable
parliamentary time. Instead, changes would be proposed by ministers and
briefly considered by committees from each house. MPs waved it through
its first and second readings. But the parliamentary committees who
scrutinised the bill were astonished to see that, with the exception of
changing tax laws, the powers it offered ministers were almost
limitless. The regulatory reform committee raised the alarm in a
February report, pointing out how dramatic the increase in executive
power would be. Six Cambridge law professors wrote to the Times (alas,
why not the Guardian?) to warn that, under the bill, ministers could do
almost anything they chose, including ending jury trial, sacking judges,
and dispensing with habeas corpus. The procedure committee added their
voice to the concerns. Slowly, the media and the public began to be
aware of the threat.
Meanwhile the bill was going through committee, with the minister in
charge, Jim Murphy, maintaining that it would never be used for “highly
controversial” measures. He refused to define “controversial”, or place
an amendment defining it in the bill. MPs knew that without that, his
assurances were useless. All that counts when a measure is law are the
words in the legislation, not the conversation that was had around it.
MPs asked for a long list of important acts – Magna Carta, Habeas corpus
and many more – to be explicitly placed beyond the bill’s reach. Mr
Murphy refused. MPs became more anxious, and opponents dubbed the
measure “the abolition of parliament bill”.
Less than two weeks ago, the public administration committee added its
concerns. It said that, as currently drafted, “the bill gives the
government powers which are entirely disproportionate to its stated
aims”. It said that before the bill left the House of Commons, it must
“provide adequate safeguards against the misuse of the order-making
process”, and must introduce “real restrictions on the government’s
powers”. It too wanted many laws placed beyond the bill’s reach – and
warned, diplomatically, that government undertakings that they would
limit the use of their powers were meaningless unless they were written
in law.
Yesterday the government capitulated. Clause one of the bill originally
allowed them to “reform legislation”. Now it restricts them to removing
burdens from business. “It’s what the bill should have looked like when
they first introduced it,” said the officer of the house. Committees
from both the Commons and the Lords will now have the power to veto
legislation, and the period during which parliament can choose to
scrutinise ministers’ decisions has been increased from 21 to 30 days.
Jim Murphy’s statement showed how far the government had moved. “We have
now reached a turning point in this debate. This is no longer about what
the government should do next: the government has listened and acted.”
The Conservatives welcomed “a major climbdown”, but the Lib Dems were
more cautious, saying they would work to ensure that the bill still
contained no threat to major legislation.
…contd
Parliamentary insiders were still puzzled about the genesis of the bill.
Had civil servants pushed it onto ministers in the hope of making their
own lives easier, and had ministers just seized upon it gratefully as a
way of avoiding tiresome debate and possible defeat? Or had frustrated
ministers demanded that the civil servants draw it up? Either way, the
fact that the government were willing to attempt to push it through
showed a remarkable contempt for parliament and its procedures. It is a
relief that, in the end, parliament was sufficiently alive to the danger
of the measures to protest and that ministers, faced with hostility in
the Commons, the media and the pressure groups, felt compelled to act.
Where is the Schedule of Excepted “constitutional” Acts of Parliament as proposed by the Opposition e.g. Civil Contingencies Act, Human Rights Act etc. ?
If there is no intention to amend or repeal these by Order, then explicitly putting them into the text of the Bill would not detract from any “red-tape” cutting measures. The fact that Jim Murphy has again refused to do this is suspicious.
The original clause which denies public consultation, replacing it with Minsterially hand picked “stakeholders” (nominated organisations, and even nominated individuals within those organisations), whose opinions can be ignored, is unamended.
So what if there is a bigger role for Parliamntary Committees. They will still only be able to veto or more likley rubber stamp an Order, without amendments, given that they will inevitably have a Government majority. Any moderately complicated order, with one controversial issue, buried amongst a raft of welcome or necessary reforms, will simply be nodded through.