The Bill is also subject to its own provisions. In other words, once passed by Parliament, Ministers will be able to amend it, which includes removing the already pitiful limitations about two-year sentences and taxation. ... In yesterday's Times, LibDem MP David Howarth described the Bill as ‘an astonishing proposal’, noting that ‘some constitutional experts are already calling [it] "the Abolition of Parliament Bill"’ (David Howarth, ‘Who wants the Abolition of Parliament Bill?’ in The Times February 21, 2006) while Daniel Finklestein has described how ‘[t]he House of Lords Constitution Committee says the Bill is "of first-class constitutional significance" and fears that it could "markedly alter the respective and long standing roles of minister and Parliament in the legislative process"’ (Daniel Finklestein, ‘How I woke up to a nightmare plot to steal centuries of law and liberty’ in The Times, February 15 2006). In a letter to the FT, Tony Wright, the Chairman of the Commons’ Public Administration Select Committee described the Bill (rather limply) as potentially a ‘significant transfer of constitutional power from parliament to the executive.’ (Tony Wright, ‘Regulation bill's aims are admirable but the transfer of power must be questioned,’ Letters to the Editor, in the Financial Times, February 15, 2006).
In case this isn't sufficiently alarming, another source of mine points out another set of potential consequences; the Act would make it possible to
cast aside the five-year limit on a parliamentary term allowing the Prime Minister to remain in Downing Street for as long as he wanted. Mr Clarke, chairman of the Conservatives' Democracy Taskforce, said the law would sideline democracy and debate on an 'astonishing scale'.
Under the 1911 Parliament Act, the Government must call a General Election within five years of winning office. But the little-publicised Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill would give Tony Blair and his ministers the power to change any law without scrutiny or approval by Parliament. Ministers would be able to change divorce laws, introduce house arrest, curtail or
abolish jury trial and give police powers to detain individuals, with no vote or discussion by the House of Commons.
So for example, the bill allows for ministers to legislate by fiat penalties up to 2 year imprisonment. But they could change that provision by using the powers the Act would grant them to alter any legislation, including the Act itself.
I've already mesnioned in this blog how sloppy the legislation the government keeps bringing to parliament is: constantly they say that the intention is not to .... whatever .... but the clear provisions do not state intentions and we know that once on the statute books, laws take on a life of their own and intentions may count for little.
Sleepwalking to a police state indeed. Because, of course;
The Government announced that it accepts the House of Lords concerns about making Identity Registration compulsory, and removed from the Identity Cards Bill the powers to order people to register and to force them to produce ID to access basic services. New legislation would be needed, it has said.
However, such new legislation is ALREADY before parliament. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform
Bill, scheduled to pass shortly after the Identity Cards Bill, would enable ministers (with very limited safeguards) to modify any Act of parliament by order - and this could include putting making ID compulsory.
It only needs another terrorist incident and you can bet that such powers would be used quickly while the public were still shocked and before 'we' could think about consequences.
Write now. You can find how here.
Many Angry Gerbils: Enabling tyranny:
Filed in: UK, government, legislation, constitution
