Well, enjoy it while you can, because it might not last much longer if the UK government get their way.

...a nightmare plot - The Times

Unnoticed by the majority, the government is quietly slipping through legislation that is being called the "Abolition of Parliament Bill", the "Totalitarianism Bill", and other equally scary names.


...truly how democracy is extinguished - The Guardian

Its real name is the "Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill", and it threatens to bypass normal Parliamentary controls, and make it almost impossible to stop government ministers from enacting any law they like.


...almost unfettered power - The Daily Mail

...The bill marks the end of true parliamentary democracy; it is as significant as Congress abandoning the Bill of Rights - John Pilger (see link to article below)

What's The Problem?

The boringly-named Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is in fact a very dangerous piece of legislation. It grants any minister the ability to amend, replace, or repeal existing legislation. The frightening thing is this: they would be able to make major changes to the law without Parliament being able to examine it properly, taking away the ability of Parliament to meaningfully represent the citizens of this country.

Limitations

The only limitations are that the changes may not:

    * impose new taxes,
    * create new criminal offenses with a sentence of more than 2 years, or
    * authorise forced entry, search or seizure, or compel the giving of evidence.

This means that if a minister got up in a bad mood, he could decide to make laughing in public punishable by 2 years in prison by amending the Serious Organised Crime Act. Or if he was late to work, he could arbitrarily do away with speed limits by amending the Road Traffic Act.

More worryingly, the minister involved can amend any existing legislation; nothing is protected. So, as was pointed out in The Times by 6 law professors from Cambridge, a minister could abolish trial by jury, suspend habeas corpus (your right not to be arbitrarily arrested), or change any of the legislation governing the legal system.

That's 700 years of democracy and the rule of law, thrown away in a heartbeat. What's left of the Magna Carta, the foundation of just about all modern democracies, would be finally gone, and our Parliament, which has influenced democratic systems all over the world, would just be a footnote in history.
What Is It For?

Ministers claim that the bill is needed to allow them to cut down on red tape, to help eliminate unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy without having to go through the full Parliamentary process, thus speeding up the whole process and making it more efficient.

However, there is nothing in the bill that restricts it only to that use. It can be used to change any legislation, without exception. Moreover, the government has actually rejected amendments that would have limited the power of the Bill.

Rigorous Safeguards

The government has referred to the protection provided by the "rigorous safeguards" that are built into the bill. However, these are in fact far from rigorous. The only safeguard is that the minister who is making the order should be convinced that:

   1. the policy objective intended to be secured by the provision could not be satisfactorily secured by non-legislative means;
   2. the effect of the provision is proportionate to the policy objective;
   3. the provision, taken as a whole, strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected by it;
   4. the provision does not remove any necessary protection;
   5. the provision does not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom which that person might reasonably expect to continue to exercise.

These are vague at best, and seeing as only the minister involved has to be satisfied with the answers, these safeguards give no protection at all. Even senior government figures have called the safeguards "inadequate".

Delegation

The Bill also allows ministers to give the power to pass laws to other individuals, who are not necessarily ministers. This delegation means that unelected officials, or even people outside government, could easily end up with the power to make laws that bind us all.

For instance, an order could be passed that allowed police superintendents to retrospectively create new offences, which could be punishable by up to 2 years' imprisonment. This would make policing "more efficient" as it would avoid losing cases on legal technicalities. The Bill is unclear on whether these delegated orders would have to go before Parliament at all!
We Have Their Word

When presenting the bill, Jim Murphy MP, who seems to have the job of getting this bill passed, said:

"I give the House clear undertakings, which I shall repeat in Committee, that the orders will not be used to implement highly controversial reforms."
- House of Commons debates, Febuary 9th 2006

This is not enough. The current government can promise not to abuse its power all it likes, but can it speak for every government that will exist after it? If the bill should not be used for "controversial reforms", then that limitation should be written into the bill. As it stands, the bill can modify any existing legislation, without exception.

Do you trust the current government with that kind of power? Even if you do, do you automatically trust every future government with that same power?

Self Modifying

One of the most dangerous aspects of the Bill is that it also applies to itself. This means that even the few safeguards and limitations that are built into the bill could be removed without proper Parliamentary scrutiny.

Rushed Through

On top of all its problems, the bill is being rushed through Parliament very quickly. This bill has massive significance for the constitution of the UK, and yet Parliament will have no more than one day in which to debate it during its Report stage and Third Reading.

The bill recently completed its progress through the Committee Stage of the House of Commons without any major changes, so this bill is in serious danger of going all the way without being stopped!

The Bill is online at:
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/111/06111.1-4.html

More information

John Pilger sees freedom die quietly: "The bill marks the end of true parliamentary democracy; it is as significant as Congress abandoning the Bill of Rights." Read more at:

http://www.newstatesman.com/200604170017

Three websites where you can read more about the campaign at: 

http://www.hoojum.com/LARRB/LARRB.html 

http://www.saveparliament.org.uk/

http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=2509

Also use the Search engine to find Glos Green party news items.

Six law professors write to The Times 

The Times    February 16, 2006

Sir, Clause one of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill (Comment, Feb 15) provides that: “A Minister of the Crown may by order make provision for either or both of the following purposes — a) reforming legislation; b) implementing recommendations of any one or more of the United Kingdom Law Commissions, with or without changes.”

This has been presented as a simple measure “streamlining” the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, by which, to help industry, the Government can reduce red tape by amending the Acts of Parliament that wove it. But it goes much further: if passed, the Government could rewrite almost any Act and, in some cases, enact new laws that at present only Parliament can make.

The Bill subjects this drastic power to limits, but these are few and weak. If enacted as it stands, we believe the Bill would make it possible for the Government, by delegated legislation, to do (inter alia) the following:

*    create a new offence of incitement to religious hatred, punishable with two years’ imprisonment;
*    curtail or abolish jury trial;
*    permit the Home Secretary to place citizens under house arrest;
*    allow the Prime Minister to sack judges;
*    rewrite the law on nationality and immigration;
*    “reform” Magna Carta (or what remains of it).

It would, in short, create a major shift of power within the state, which in other countries would require an amendment to the constitution; and one in which the winner would be the executive, and the loser Parliament.

David Howarth, MP for Cambridge, made this point at the Second Reading of the Bill last week. We hope that other MPs, on all sides of the House, will recognise the dangers of what is being proposed before it is too late.

PROFESSOR J. R. SPENCER, QC
PROFESSOR SIR JOHN BAKER, QC
PROFESSOR DAVID FELDMAN
PROFESSOR CHRISTOPHER FORSYTH
PROFESSOR DAVID IBBETSON
PROFESSOR SIR DAVID WILLIAMS, QC
Law Faculty, University of Cambridge