Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill Revisited

[liadnan]

The government seeks to assure us that the provisions of Part 1 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill if passed will not be used in "controversial" areas. But they refuse to incorporate anything to that effect into the Bill itself, leaving us only with ministerial assurances which are of about as much significance as a chocolate teapot (they wouldn't provide a Pepper v. Hart point, which is about the only time they could help).

The opposition drafted a list of statutes which, they argued, were of major constitutional significance, and should be excluded from the ambit of the Bill. Murphy, after all, had said that: "The Bill builds on the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. It aims to deliver on the Government’s agenda of better regulation. As part of that, however, we need to ensure through our deliberations in these eight sittings that there is a correct level of effective parliamentary scrutiny. Ultimately, however, the Bill is intended to maintain the UK’s competitiveness, free up public sector workers and others from bureaucracy, and remove unnecessary regulation."

The Government has refused to accept that amendment to the following Acts should be specifically excluded from the ambit of "removing unnecessary regulation":

Act of Settlement 1700
Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
Bail Act 1976
Bill of Rights 1688
Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919
Church of Scotland Act 1921
Civil Contingencies Act 2004
Claim of Right 1689
Constitutional Reform Act 2005
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
European Communities Act 1972
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Government of Ireland Act 1920
Government of Wales Act 2006
Government of Wales Act 1998
Habeas Corpus Acts 1679 to 1862
House of Lords Act 1999
Human Rights Act 1998
Identity Cards Act 2006 (NB)
Immigration Act 1971
Local Government Act 1972
Magna Carta 1215
Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975
Ministers of the Crown Act 1975
Northern Ireland Act 1947
Northern Ireland Act 1998
Official Secrets Acts 1911 to 1989
Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949
Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005
Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Act 1706
Public Order Acts 1936 to 1986
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
Representation of the People Acts 1981 to 2002
Scotland Act 1998
Security Service Act 1989
Statute of Westminster 1931
Succession to the Crown Act 1707
Terrorism Act 2000
Terrorism Act 2006
Union with England Act 1707
Union with Scotland Act 1706
Welsh Church Disestablishment Act 1914.

That list includes everything that amounts to the constitution and the statutory protection of fundamental rights of the UK. By explicitly refusing to exclude these provisions the Government makes it clear that every one of those Acts can and may be amended without the need for an Act of Parliament. Assurances to the contrary are of no binding effect whatsoever.

Chicken Yoghurt and Liberty Central have more. There's also a House of Commons Research Paper, a Briefing from the New Politics Network and one from Clifford Chance (all in pdf format) (Via Nosemonkey)

Comments

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

*shudder*

In proposing this the Government is either being frighteningly naive, or blatantly power hungry. Given the statistical certainty that they will be handing this blunderbuss to the Conservative party at some point in the future, I have to come down on the side of naivete. Which is hardly less depressing than the alternative.

I love the understatement in the last sentence of the Clifford Chance briefing.

[liadnan]

I'm not sure it's what they meant but I rather like the term "a confusion of legislation" as a collective noun.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

I always liked "a plague" as the collective

[rosinarowantree.livejournal.com]

But will they have to hand over to the Conservatives? If they can change the law which says you have to have elections, they need never go back to the electorate. First thing to do, if you want a tyranny.

Or just add Conservative Party to your list of banned terrorist organizations.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

No one would ever believe the Conservatives were terrorists. Or organised.

Don't worry, the royal perogative will protect our elections. There's no sign of anyone attacking the constitutional role of the Sovereign, is there?

[liadnan]

Actually you know, though I'm not particularly monarchist in general since we have the institution it occasionally strikes me we could do something about entrenching fundamental rights with the coronation oath and some conventions (eg sovereign won't sign an enactment affecting fundamental rights or constitutional arrangements without a referendum or something...)

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Yuch! I'm particularly anti-monarchist, (something to do with an old knee injury that makes it hard for me to bend it). I totally agree that we should have some fundamental protection from Parliament's rights to legislate our constitution away, but please god not by formalising some chinless wonder's divine right...

[lizw.livejournal.com]

Don't worry, the royal perogative will protect our elections. There's no sign of anyone attacking the constitutional role of the Sovereign, is there?

*snrch*

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

See, now you get it when I'm sarcastic.

[lizw.livejournal.com]

I've been watching Charlie Falconer's antics for too long not to get that one ;-)

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Sound man - won't hear a word said against him. Excellent taste in wallpaper.

[sbp.livejournal.com]

Magna Carta 1215 - ace!