Abolition of Parliament Bill

[ciphergoth]

I thought word of this had already spread far and wide, but it seems not to have reached everyone, so here it is. Bizarrely, a bill nicknamed the "Abolition of Parliament Bill" that (indirectly) gives ministers the power to abolish Parliament and seize dictatorial powers in perpituity has not received much press attention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_and_Regulatory_Reform_Bill

This is being rushed through Parliament with one hour for debate. I kid you not.

http://saveparliament.org.uk/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act

Comments

[zotz]

Part of the bill as published. It's mentioned in the Wikipedia article as one of the conditions any order must satisfy, and this notably precludes most of the examples of using the passed Act to modify its own text.

It wouldn't be hard to improve it with a small amendment. Not passing it would be better, though. The executive doesn't need any more power.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

You're referring to section 3.2.d:

3 Preconditions

(1) A Minister may not make an order under section 1 [...] unless he considers that the conditions in subsection (2), where relevant, are satisfied in relation to that provision.

(2) Those conditions are that [...] (d) the provision does not remove any necessary protection; (e) 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.

So the minister has to be satisfied that the protection afforded by living in a democracy is not necessary and I can't reasonably expect it. I don't feel any safer. The House of Commons Procedure Committee felt the same way:

We are also extremely concerned by the apparent unwillingness of the Government, certainly to date, to agree to additional safeguards being added to the Bill.

[zotz]

A court can knock back such an order if the conditions aren't satisfied, which means that the minster must have acted reasonably rather than on a whim. Frankly I think the courts are probably a harder barrier than the Commons, these days.

I agree with the committee, but I don't agree that their comment implies that they agree with the more apocalyptic statements.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

You mean that the safeguard is judicial review?

Hmm, I know some people who know a thing or two about judicial review, I'll see what they think...

[lizw.livejournal.com]

"Reasonable" in the judicial review process effectively means "not so unreasonable that you'd have to be mad to do it". It's extremely difficult to establish. The Government has already been invited to confirm that the Bill would not be applied to a list of key constitutional legislation, including Magna Carta, and has refused.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

In order to knock it back, you have to persuade the courts that the Minister's decision is Wednesbury unreasonable, something courts are very loath to do. Furthermore, it's not clear who would have the standing to bring the case. Frankly, as safeguards go, this seems a seatbelt made of wet noodles.

[bootpunk.livejournal.com]

If only we knew a "rebellious" back bench Labour MP ...

[zotz]

I think we can rely on there being objections to it.

[bootpunk.livejournal.com]

Yup. But I think Paul's point about the relative lack of noise in the mainstream media is pretty valid. Its been kicked around the 'net plenty tho'. Maybe we just have to wait for a quiet news day and a lazy journo.

OT, but does your sister still have the flat just down the road from me?

[zotz]

Paul's point - yes, I agree. People should definitely be onto their MPs to see if it can be blocked. Definitely.

Yes, Kate's still in the same place. Unless she's done a flit very quietly.