How I woke up to a nightmare plot to steal centuries of law and liberty

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Thu, 16 Feb 2006 11:38:06 GMT  <== Politics ==> 

Daniel Finkelstein at Times Online - a light-hearted warning about a very serious subject, England's new "Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill." It seems that somebody in Merry Olde England is tired of waiting for Parliament to approve legislation, and is trying to get rid of that nasty requirement. Welcome to the New Totalitarian State™. Click here for Samizdata discussion. [samizdata]

In my nightmare, Tony Blair finally decides that he is fed-up with putting Bills before Parliament. He has so much to do and so little time. Don't you realise how busy he is? He's had enough of close shaves and of having to cut short trips abroad. He decides to put a Bill to End All Bills before the Commons, one that gives him and his ministers power to introduce and amend any legislation in future without going through all those boring stages in Parliament.

...

Now I know what I am about to tell you is difficult to believe (Why isn't this on the front pages? Where's the big political row?) but I promise you that it is true. The extraordinary Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, currently before the House, gives ministers power to amend, repeal or replace any legislation simply by making an order and without having to bring a Bill before Parliament. The 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".

There are a few restrictions -- orders can't be used to introduce new taxes, for instance -- but most of the limitations on their use are fuzzy and subjective. One of the "safeguards" in the Bill is that an order can impose a burden only "proportionate to the benefit expected to be gained". And who gets to judge whether it is proportionate? Why, the minister of course. The early signs are not good. Having undertaken initially not to use orders for controversial laws, the Government has already started talking about abstaining from their use when the matter at hand is "highly" controversial.

Add comment Edit post Add post