BILL TO KILL PARLIAMENT IN LORDS TODAY (TUESDAY)
technicolour | 12.06.2006 21:15 | Repression | Social Struggles
THE BILL
There’s something fishy about the progress of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, which is getting its second reading in the House of Lords tomorrow, and by fishy, I mean an old, putrid fish, rotten to the point where you reel back in disgust, obviously. The Chairman of the House of Lords Committee currently dealing with the Bill said it first. "They (the government) wanted to give themselves power to change any law with the minimum of parliamentary involvement, thus gold-plating their powers," Lord Holme reported. The government, he then added “got it badly wrong this time”.
Well no, anyone still possessing logic, which this Bill tends to destroy, must be thinking at this juxtaposition. The government have surely not “got it badly wrong”. They have so far managed to get this Bill through all three readings in the House of Commons. “They” wanted to “gold-plate” their powers, and “they” have almost managed to do so. All that remains between us and a virtual dictatorship now is the House of Lords, whose sterling dissection of the amended Bill managed to hit precisely one headline last week, and whose own existence is under permanent threat. You could, rather more convincingly, argue that the government have got it very right, if the stench wasn’t threatening to overwhelm you.
One supposes that Lord Holme, having looked with clear eyes at the truth of the Bill, and dared to speak that truth through the miasma of lies, diversions and empty promises with which the government have managed to get to this stage, was overwhelmed. And the Bill really is too much, even for people who have become used to it. The amendments, as the Lords’ report points out, do not do what the government assured people they would do. So where are the wild cries of horror which originally greeted the Bill’s contents, once those contents became understood? Where are the lawyers, the commentators, the bloggers and the campaigners whose passionate defence of our democracy meant that the government had at least to make a pretence of amending the Bill? Exhausted, dispirited, and hoping that the Lords will somehow get it right, one suspects. Not to mention taken entirely by surprise, yet again, by the government’s impeccable timing.
The government’s tactics so far have been simple, and effective. First they tried to get the Bill through without any publicity at all. When its contents were finally exposed, they delayed a response, then grudgingly announced that they would consider changing the contents. Once the cheers of delight and relief had died down, and the Bill’s opponents, believing they had won a victory, took their eye off things, the government struck. The third reading came out of nowhere. MP’s were given three days to study the last set of amendments before voting on them. Now the Bill is in the Lords. "Already? No!" was the common reponse from the lawyers I spoke to, including the commercial lawyers Olswangs, who had described it as “unnecessary, sinister and undesirable”, and the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship who, along with other faith groups, had been campaigning against it.
“It’s nothing to worry about” a minor civil servant was telling me yesterday. “All that will have happened is that they tried to give themselves as much power as possible. There’s nothing sinister in that. It’s just a practical matter”. And in the meantime the government – or the executive, rather, since this Bill is generated and backed by both Blair and Brown – have lied, and lied again to get this Bill through; lied about everything from its overall purpose to its fine detail. "They should have known that was constitutionally questionable" said Lord Holme. He had just accused the government of wanting to seize legislative power; of course they must have known it was “constitutionally questionable”. We all need to face up to facts, it seems, and instead here we are, still holding our noses in denial.
There’s something fishy about the progress of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, which is getting its second reading in the House of Lords tomorrow, and by fishy, I mean an old, putrid fish, rotten to the point where you reel back in disgust, obviously. The Chairman of the House of Lords Committee currently dealing with the Bill said it first. "They (the government) wanted to give themselves power to change any law with the minimum of parliamentary involvement, thus gold-plating their powers," Lord Holme reported. The government, he then added “got it badly wrong this time”.
Well no, anyone still possessing logic, which this Bill tends to destroy, must be thinking at this juxtaposition. The government have surely not “got it badly wrong”. They have so far managed to get this Bill through all three readings in the House of Commons. “They” wanted to “gold-plate” their powers, and “they” have almost managed to do so. All that remains between us and a virtual dictatorship now is the House of Lords, whose sterling dissection of the amended Bill managed to hit precisely one headline last week, and whose own existence is under permanent threat. You could, rather more convincingly, argue that the government have got it very right, if the stench wasn’t threatening to overwhelm you.
One supposes that Lord Holme, having looked with clear eyes at the truth of the Bill, and dared to speak that truth through the miasma of lies, diversions and empty promises with which the government have managed to get to this stage, was overwhelmed. And the Bill really is too much, even for people who have become used to it. The amendments, as the Lords’ report points out, do not do what the government assured people they would do. So where are the wild cries of horror which originally greeted the Bill’s contents, once those contents became understood? Where are the lawyers, the commentators, the bloggers and the campaigners whose passionate defence of our democracy meant that the government had at least to make a pretence of amending the Bill? Exhausted, dispirited, and hoping that the Lords will somehow get it right, one suspects. Not to mention taken entirely by surprise, yet again, by the government’s impeccable timing.
The government’s tactics so far have been simple, and effective. First they tried to get the Bill through without any publicity at all. When its contents were finally exposed, they delayed a response, then grudgingly announced that they would consider changing the contents. Once the cheers of delight and relief had died down, and the Bill’s opponents, believing they had won a victory, took their eye off things, the government struck. The third reading came out of nowhere. MP’s were given three days to study the last set of amendments before voting on them. Now the Bill is in the Lords. "Already? No!" was the common reponse from the lawyers I spoke to, including the commercial lawyers Olswangs, who had described it as “unnecessary, sinister and undesirable”, and the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship who, along with other faith groups, had been campaigning against it.
“It’s nothing to worry about” a minor civil servant was telling me yesterday. “All that will have happened is that they tried to give themselves as much power as possible. There’s nothing sinister in that. It’s just a practical matter”. And in the meantime the government – or the executive, rather, since this Bill is generated and backed by both Blair and Brown – have lied, and lied again to get this Bill through; lied about everything from its overall purpose to its fine detail. "They should have known that was constitutionally questionable" said Lord Holme. He had just accused the government of wanting to seize legislative power; of course they must have known it was “constitutionally questionable”. We all need to face up to facts, it seems, and instead here we are, still holding our noses in denial.
technicolour
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
more...
14.06.2006 10:08
anarchoteapot
try this
14.06.2006 13:22
see also www.saveparliament.org.uk for much more background
THE BILL
The government’s Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill intends to let ministers make up a law, and make it law, without taking it through Parliament first. The Bill is now set for its final reading in the House of Commons. And every Labour MP has so far voted for it.
'We were misinformed' says Paul Flynn, Labour MP for Newport. In a recent interview he is the first to break ranks and admit this. 'We accepted it at face value. It hadn’t been properly discussed. It didn’t emerge on the radar. We accepted the assurances that it was a deregulatory Bill, with no malign effects.' He was, he added, very unhappy.
To understand how someone like Flynn, a prominent Labour rebel, can be taken in, one must look at the saga of the Bill. Eight months ago no-one had heard of the 'Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill', because it didn’t exist. Instead, launched on July 20th 2005, was something described as a 'Bill for Better Regulation'. It would, said the Cabinet Office, 'speed up the Government’s Better Regulation agenda'. Behind the Bill was an independent body called the Better Regulation Task Force (BRTF). In its 2005 report - 'Regulation - Less is More' - the BRTF recommended that the government introduce a new Deregulation Bill.
The head of the BRTF was a businessman called Sir David Arculus, described in the Telegraph as a 'serial chairman'. He was enthusiastic about his influence on the government. 'I spoke to the Prime Minister and was delighted when he agreed to sponsor our report' Arculus said, in a speech to the Financial Services Authority in 2005. He had been equally delighted when the government accepted all the BRTF’s proposals on the same day their report was published. He was pleased to see the sudden emphasis Tony Blair had put on better regulation in a speech to the Institute of Public Policy. The idea of a new Deregulatory Bill for businesses was welcomed by everyone, apart from a few concerned about the idea of unregulated business.
Fast forward to January 2006, when the first warning rumbles could be heard about something called the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. They came from the commercial law firm Clifford Chance. This Bill would mean, warned their briefing to clients, that ministers would have the powers to create legislation with 'very little scrutiny'. Legislation which then, the briefing continued 'cannot be amended by Parliament.'
At the time, the Bill was getting its first reading in Parliament. It was being presented as the final version of the 'Bill forBetterRegulation'. Yet, in this version of the Bill, there was now no mention of deregulating business. And the word 'Legislative' had crept in from nowhere. Nevertheless, the Bill went through, untouched.
A month later, after the Bill had gone through its second reading in the Commons, some people outside Clifford Chance had actually read it. Bloggers, Cambridge lawyers and media commentators started metaphorically screaming. 'This is the Bill that will kill democracy'; 'This is Hitler!' 'This is Stalin!' The Lib Dems then came out openly against it. So did the Conservatives. 'What we have now', says Conservative MP Oliver Heald, 'is the wide, fast-track power to amend, repeal or introduce primary or secondary legislation by order for any purpose'.
Heald, backed by his party, has tabled several amendments to the Bill. The Regulatory Reform Committee, who have just finished scrutinising the Bill, have also tabled amendments. 'It can’t be right that Ministers be given such wide and general powers to make any primary legislation. We called for extra safeguards to be inserted into the Bill so we welcome the statement made by Jim Murphy' said the committee’s chairman. The statement made by Jim Murphy, the minister responsible for getting the Bill through Parliament, was simply that the government 'will consider the addition of further safeguards'.
As indeed, they might. It is possibly worth noting that, in local government, it is quite common to suggest an idea so outrageous that, after the expected outcry, the administration can gracefully back down – and get their original intentions passed without opposition. But here, this does not seem to be the case. According to Oliver Heald, when asked why the Bill did not contain the orginal recommendations concerning business regulation, Murphy replied 'We have wider ambitions than that'.
The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is an urgent topic. It is due for its third and final reading in the House of Commons around Easter. Over the last few days many more people have become exercised about it, largely because lawyers, journalists and bloggers have kept up the pressure. We now know that it has leapt from mere business deregulation to allowing a government to make up laws without parliamentary approval. We know that the few safeguards currently built into the Bill can be removed once the Bill is passed. 'We will just have to hope that they (the government) come to their senses and realise there’s a great deal of opposition out there', says Paul Flynn. Amendments or not, he will now be voting against the Bill this Easter.
tech