Like a Vampire, "Destroy Parliament" Clause Returns
Full details on the excellent SpyBlog.Part 6 43 Power to make consequential provision
FINAL PROVISION(1) A Minister of the Crown, or two or more Ministers of the Crown acting jointly, may by order make such provision as the Minister or Ministers consider appropriate in consequence of this Act.
(2) An order under subsection (1) may --
(a) amend, repeal or revoke any provision made by or an Act;
(b) include transitional or saving provision.
(3) An order under subsection (1) is to be made by statutory instrument.
(4) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (1) which amends or repeals a provision of an Act may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (1) which does not amend or repeal a provision of an Act is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
61 comments:
I thought we effectively had that already - but from Brussels
Have I misread this? Part 4 can surely be translated into English as:
'Yeah the ministers can spit out their shitty orders if they want to - but only if the Commons and Lords have previously said OK'.
In which case nothing to see here folks - move along now please.
Any lawyers out there who can translate this whole crap into English?
Why, by the way, can't law be written in easy to understand English? What do the politician's fear? It's a bit like rendering the Bible into English for the first time - the riffraff might get to form their own opinions!)
Patrick makes a good point, yet part four refers to 'amends or repeals' whilst part 2(a) refers to 'amend, repeal or revoke'.
So, my simple understanding is that a Minister can revoke any existing provision without laying a draft before Parliament.
Can anyone shed any light on this point? And what is the difference between repeal and revoke?
SP
The effect seems to be that any primary legislation that has followed the path of three readings and committee review in both houses can be replaced, removed or modified by a statutory instrument that requires just a simple vote in both houses without any provision for proper debate and scrutiny. Even Hitler and Stalin had more scrutiny of their laws than this.
Question, If this is the way in which the government is to be run why are we paying £500m pa for the charade of a parliament.
kinglear,
I thought we had that as well but we are having to fight a war to save our democracy on two fronts- one in Westminster and the other in Brussels.
Why do these bastards hate our freedoms so much? It's hardly surprising and quite understandable that so many people turn to the likes of Alex Jones and David Icke. Regardless of what you and I might think of such individuals at least they provide at least semi-coherent explanations for these constant and unprecedented attacks on our liberties.
Perhaps it is all down to the NWO after all.
Btw Mr Fawkes, thanks for the heads up on this issue. I can't imagine Mr Robinson having anything to say about this one- can you?
It would appear that we will have our liberties destroyed under the camoflauge of 'constitutional reform'.
And then these bastards ask themselves why they are held in such contempt.
Evil c**ts.
*goes for a despairing ciggie*
I can't can't make head nor tail of what it is trying to say.
So I'll just take your word for it Guido.
Fucking New Labour Cunts, all of them.
If I can't understand what it is saying mind, how can the dullards that surround Brown understand it?
We already have this system - it is called the EU.
The time to get out of that ringpiece of stars is now.
"If I can't understand what it is saying mind, how can the dullards that surround Brown understand it?"
The knuckle dragging Scottish mongs aren't meant to understand any of it (few of them can read, so how can they?), they merely have to vote for it, so that the wishes of the Supreme Leader can become law. Having bottled the last election, I think the cunt has decided that the whole election thing is overrated, and he would rather rule by decree to the acclaim of the proletariat.
Patrick:
Before breathing any sighs of relief, I'd suggest to use 'They Work For You' and look at what passes for parliamentary procedure on most secondary legislation.
Friday's are the best day to look at, as that often when things a quietly moved through a near empty house while most MPs already have hit the road to get back to the constituencies for the weekend.
To clarify the language, you repeal legislation and you revoke orders, like the standing orders that govern much of parliamentary procedure in the two Houses.
A vote on a statutory instrument need not be preceded by any debate. As an earlier anonymous poster said, even the Third Reich did not come up with that one.
Unbelievable.
Doesn't it just mean that where another Act needs to be amended to conform with this new Act, then those amendments can be made under this procedure. I don't think it means that any legislation can be amended willy nilly.
Statutory instruments have been around for years - what's the big deal?
This does have the slight wiff of Ermächtigungsgesetz about it. Although we would need to know the parliamentary difference between a resolution and a vote also there is no mention of Royal Assent to these 'resolutions' is this backdoor republicanism?
Time for a petition, or even a march on Westminster.
Lousy control freaks. Hitler did not finish school in controlery compared with this lot of Two-faced cheats.
What difference will it make any way? They all do whatever they like anyway..
Peter Carter Fuck,
keep mouthing off about us jocks and the only thing you'll be reading is the hospital menu.
Shouldn't you English be off surrendering to some Iranians?
Wanker.
anon 10.41,
to revoke would be temporary, to repeal would be permanant. this bill turns such constitutional logic on its head.
you've got to give it to the americans, they really do come up with some spastic ideas.
they might be able to pull that fascist patriot act shit in the good old US but it doesn't wash over here.
gordon the turncoat brownshirt does have a certain ring to it, doesn't it?
Labour remind me of that annoying kid we all used to be when we wanted something but mummy said no;
"Can I have a lolly?" No
"Can I have a lolly?" No
"Can I have a lolly?" Look, I told you no and that's final
"Can I have a lolly?" *sighs* Oh, alright then, if it keep you quiet.
For the above, replace 'lolly' with 'authoritarian state' and you pretty much have Labour's vision of democracy. And don't even start me on the Civil Contingencies Bill...when's the next election due? And what's the chances we don't get one?
We the undersigned New Labour MP's propose the abolition of democracy, and the installation of a Fourth Reich within the UK, as our past glorious leader Saint Blair intimated - "New Labour should rule forever".
Dunfesterin:
Please try and deny that NuLabor's corrupt project is only kept in place by the votes of its semi-literate Scottish placemen?
And please don't call me a wanker, I like to save it all up for when I'm fucking your wife up the arse.
Some Tory MP just raised this at Business Questions and even quoted Guido's headline to the leader of the house.
Guido.
Spot on. I have been saying for months that this lot will engineer some 'emergency' to enable them to 'govern' us for as long as they wish.
The 'British' English. Welsh. Scots and Irish are too damned weak to do anything about it.
They go home and live in thei own little cocoon. Only when Sky closes down and their footie and sports and premier films stop will they, possibly, wake up.
Community in its true meaning has gone and we are left with a gibbering mass of self obsessed people, more interested in Mrs Rooney's 100.000 £ wedding dress and all that than the real world of liberty.
There will not be mass riots, marches or anything like that. We English are finished as an Island Race.
Isn't the internet a wonderful thing!
We start off with a sensible labour mong bashing and it quickly becomes an international bitch fest. Haven't laughed so much in ages.
I'm now seriously looking forward to Dunfesterin's next reply to Peter Carter Fuck. Not sure how he top a buggery threat.
The cunts tried this before, in 2006, with The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act; paraded as an attack on red tape, it hid clauses which would have allowed Ministers to change virtually any law without referring to parliament.
Someone shoot the lot of them, please.
Looks like you've all been drinking too much in your Darling free pubs again.
Subsection(2) does not give the Government power to amend any Acts or order which it might think fit - as some including Spyblog might think. The clue is in the reference to subsection (1) - which makes it clear that the order can only be made in relation to the provisions of this Act - and not any others.
I suspect Mark Harper MP may be made to look fairly foolish in due course
Jack Straw should be coming to the House to apologise for misleading the house on 25 March, where he stated that the Bill has 5 parts. No mention of the contentious Part 6. Guido and Nick Herbet, et al., take note!
Anonymous at 1:00pm. I am afraid you have got it wrong, as most labour apologists who post on blogs usually do.
Subsection 1 states 'an Act.' not 'this Act'. As such in a legal and exact form this applies to any and every act ever passed by Parliament. Put plainly, that one subsection empowers Ministers to make whatever changes they wish to any preceding legislation.
Of course you are free to believe the same politicians who have lied to you on every substantive issue, that is your choice.
Oh and by the way guys, not all Scots are semi-literate nose picking wankers, just the ones in Parliament!
Anon 12:51 Community in its true meaning has gone and we are left with a gibbering mass of self obsessed people, more interested in Mrs Rooney's £100,000 wedding dress than the real world of liberty.
Spot on. And I don't understand that legal crap either, not being employed by Messrs Sue or Grabbit.
This is how NuLab like it, of course. They turned school into a place for gaining one GCSE in Nail Filing so the people need not worry their pretty little heads about having all their liberties removed.
Unity: no Government business is ever put through the Commons on Fridays. Surprised you should have got your facts wrong on this one.
Pablo: the amendments to any Act can be made, but only in consequence of the provisions of the parent Act. Which restricts the powers the Bill, if enacted, would confer on Ministers.
I seem to recall that consequential provisions clauses are not uncommon in other Bills, and they don't go to the extent of specifying the procedures applicable as is done here. Can't recall such a fuss about e.g. section 81(3)(h) of the Equality Act 2006, which does much the same thing.
Perhaps all the barrack room lawyers and Mark Herbert should read David Boothroy's comment here before they get too excited.
http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2008/03/27/the-abolition-of-parliament-act-returns/
Pablo the Scot
"Subsection 1 states 'an Act.' not 'this Act'"
Not true it says "this Act"- checked back to the original as well as Guido's posting.
Anon 1:00
Different anonymous poster to the one above. But he or she is right, as is Danvers, and the rest of you are wrong.
Not a political opinion. A fact. This law simply does not have the effect that Spy Blog claims. It is an absolutely standard clause. Ask a lawyer. Any lawyer.
I think it's terrifying, the power of the blogosphere to dupe so many people and spread even more cynicism. Guido, Spy Blog, Iain Dale - all of you should do as you so often urge politicians to do, find out the facts, then apologise.
Actually, everyone's right... sort of. Section 43(1) is indeed "in consequence of THIS Act", but s43(2)(a) is "amend, repeal or revoke ay provision made by or under AN Act".
Of the top of my head, it looks to me like this might mean it has to be related to this act, but this act relates to pretty much everything (just look at schedule 1 which writes the A-G out of everything).
s43(4) though might mean that Parliament needs to approve anything, which is fairly standard.
In summary... no idea what the hell is going on here.
I can't for the life of me understand what you are getting so excited about. The government already has the power to suspend all existing Acts by declaring a state of emergency as defined by the Civil Contingencies Act.
Losing an election could readily be defined as a "state of energency"
I just don't trust this bunch of tossers. They appear to regard democracy as an inconvenience if it gets in the way of their grand plan to rule in perpetuity like many Northern Councils!
Peter Carter Fuck, the only thing you save up is your giro money for your yearly trip to Torremolinos, you fucking effeminate Morris-dancing English cunt.
On the subject of sperm, pity you English cunts didnt show spunk when the Iranians were rounding you up, you shitbags....
This is verbatim from the Acts explanatory notes:
"Clause 43 contains a power to make changes to primary or secondary legislation in consequence of the Bill by order. Subsection (1) provides that the power can be exercised by a Minister of the Crown, or two or more Ministers acting jointly." (My emphasis).
Looks something similar to the Abolition of Parliament Act to my untutored eye.
SpyBlog is indeed getting this out of proportion: as others have said this clause is of a fairly common type (quite a few of this sessions Bills have clauses like this), and is no big deal. It simply allows amendments that follow as a consequence of the passing of the Bill. Not just any kind of amendments and repeals ministers fancy. Ministers can be judicially reviewed, and their amendments quashed, if they go too far. I blogged about this earlier.
I don't understand it either.Does it mean that even the 1689 Bill of Rights and the act of Settlement can be overturned by decree?A one party state by the "political wing of the British people" is on the way if that is so.Our MPs need to wake up.
"Peter Carter Fuck, the only thing you save up is your giro money for your yearly trip to Torremolinos, you fucking effeminate Morris-dancing English cunt."
Dunspunkin:
You are mistaking me for Gary Elsby of Stoke. Don't worry, I won't take offence, I'm just too tired at the moment. Your missus has knackered me, she's a fucking animal, but I suppose that's what happens when she isn't getting any at home.
"Looks something similar to the Abolition of Parliament Act to my untutored eye."
But nothing like it to a tutored eye. It's a standard clause. It's in section 24 (3) of the District Courts (Scotland) Act 1975. it's in the Football (Disorder) Act 2000 (apologies to the posters on Iain Dale I stole these from). IT'S STANDARD.
Come on Guido - where's the apology for misleading your acolytes?
Danvers, HeadofLegal etc
You may well be right but years of Spin , downright lies, broken promises,electoral gerrymandering and the use of legislation for purposes beyond it's original intentions has created a climate where nobody should be surprised to see commentators assuming the worst.
Can I trust the current crop of self serving control freaks not to try and wangle some sly wider interpretation when it suits them?
My gut feeling is that If the meaning isn't 100% clear then the bill should go straight to the nearest shredder.
Remember Governments don't like declaring states of emergency
as it is a defacto admission to the outside world that the
country is in a crisis. Far better to "adapt" some earlier opaque piece of legislation slipped quietly through parliament when everybody was too bored to notice.
Well I do feel honoured that my comments have actually been read for once and commented on in turn. I was simply expressing my view of what I thought the clause meant, and it turns out other lawyers agree with me. If an bill could not pass because its meaning was not 100% clear to every commentator then nothing would ever pass - a good thing some might say.
The problem is not the powers that Parliament has or does not have. The problem is that the people sitting in Parliament rarely scruitinise anything remotely technical or obscure and exercise the limited rights they do have to prevent abuse by the executive.
However, to all those who thought that this clause is an outrage based on a couple of blog posts by your fav bloggers, in the immortal words of that fat tosser, Michael Winner: "Calm down dear".
"My gut feeling is that If the meaning isn't 100% clear then the bill should go straight to the nearest shredder."
It is 100% clear. And it's a good bill. It devolves powers from the ministers in charge to the civil service and to parliament. It limits political meddling, particularly by the Attorney-General. And it re-allows protests.
Sure, none of this is revolutionary stuff and it could have done much more. Sure, it is legitimate to doubt the motives behind these devolutions of power. But let's have some common sense instead of blanket cynicism and loathing for once on this site.
"The problem is that the people sitting in Parliament rarely scruitinise anything remotely technical or obscure".
But the people working for Parliament routinely do.
Blanket cynicism and loathing is this blog's USP.
Yes, well - this bill will be scrutinised all over parliament. just as parliament brought down the genuinely repellent "abolish parliament Bill" 2 years ago. This bill's been published in draft precisely so that lots of committees can read it and suggest amendments in a more generous timescale than they get for most bills. Lords get to look at it too, and they're usually very sharp on technical detail.
It doesn't fit the anti-parliament anti-government zeitgeist, but this is al actually parliamentary democracy working pretty well. The touble is that this is the exception rather than the rule.
"But the people working for Parliament routinely do."
Yes! And we need much more of them to stop the government getting everything it wants through - but that'll never happen while everyone lumps in staff costs with the costs of John Lewis bathmats and what have you. Parliament's actually very cheap by international standards, but it's also fairly ineffective - hmmm, could there be a link?
Oh, Guido - your USP's not very unique, is it? But kudos for replying, and I'll stop shouting at you to apologise about spreading the false idea that this law is dangerous. I think you got the picture. Keep up the bad work.
Blanket cynicism and loathing, applied with appropriate caution.
Anon 2:43pm
"I think it's terrifying, the power of the blogosphere to dupe so many people and spread even more cynicism. Guido, Spy Blog, Iain Dale - all of you should do as you so often urge politicians to do, find out the facts, then apologise."
However, the above does also show the power of the blogosphere to correct its errors - the Tory Boys error was pointed out pretty quickly. As for apologies from Guido, Dale, Dizzy and Spy Blog don't hold your breath.
Tory Boy / TW,
That is not fair. Guido ran the story quoting SpyBlog in good faith. SpyBlog has in the past broken some good stories. After the comment feedback Guido put a caution update on it. Later having read "Head of Legal"'s piece Guido put a further update saying forget it.
That was how it developed. Here for all to see.
Just because you dispute something doesn't mean anything, you always dispute things. On balance am now less convinced by SpyBlog's argument.
If your government didn't lie to us all the fucking time we wouldn't be so bloody cynical about your denials. Would we?
there seem to be a lot of new labour zombies from labourbloggers4war telling us to calm down.
never mind your propaganda, just get in line you parasitical cunts and take your medicine.
honestly, you won't feel a thing. I can assure you, I am an excellent shot.
and after all, I'm the one who has to wash the walls after your brains have been splattered over them.
you don't hear me moaning, do you?
I just get on with it. now, who's next?
I'll give you an apology if Labour honours it's manifesto pledge to have a referendum on the EU Constitution...
...still waiting...
...hmmmm...
....dumm de dum de dumm de dumm....
...whooooooosh...
...oh fuck it. Suck my plums you sad NuLab cunts! I'm glad this blog's here even if it does make the occasional error, although no-one's come back to me on the Civil Conitngencies Act.
Vampires are an increasing and often unrecognised problem. In a change of farm policy to take account of this, I have am growing a large garlic crop this year and can make arrangements with Guido's readers for reliable supplies at "Mates' Rates".
Who gives a shit that a few lawyer-poster 'experts'(nulab?) think this crap is OK. Parliament if full of greedy worthless lawyer whores, on all sides, and not to its credit either. Laws should be clear in stating their purpose and application so that ordinary people can understand them, not to provide wank fodder for grasping smart arse lawyers. Where legislation is not clear people are quite right to be suspicious given the track record of this incompetent, authoritarian government.
Now you see why it is an advantage to have a "written constitution"; and, a Supreme Court that can overrule any Act that does not comply with that Constitution.
There are far too many "enabling Acts" that allow bucket loads of secondary legislative regulations. Many of these regulations do not even see the light of day because they just will not work. Most are just to complicated for MPs to understand, so they just wave them through. The "Bill Committees" will never see most of the regulation anyway. What a system!
Apropos the Abolish Parliament Act of 2006, I wrote to my MP (then Labour - I have moved since) to note my utter disgust at the act. She very sweetly replied, saying that I shouldn't worry, as she doubted the Government would ever use it...
Say no more.
Verification : plebqehg
that cunt blair was a solicitor.
there are far too many spastic solicitors in parliament.
it has caused severe damage to our constitution and democracy.
and the legal instructions new labour constantly receives from america have also damaged the interests of this country.
gordon has no political capital in britain. his power comes from america. brown is like the american governor of the united kingdom.
what a lickspittle turncoat you are mr brown.
many people waited patiently for a labour government.
then you two cunts turned up.
you've just wasted ten years of this country's time.
the sooner brown fucks off, the sooner the damage he has caused can be repaired.
Thick:
Miranda was a Barrister, and not a very good one by all accounts. However, he came in useful as Derry Irvine, his Head of Chambers, was able to palm off the letterbox-gobbed Scouser he was shagging on to him, and the daft cunt actually went and married her.
pedantic fuck,
ever heard of poetic license or maybe you are a dalek? yes definitely a tory dalek.
Tony Blair is a war criminal. your party fully supported his engagement in war crimes.
you cunts are thick as thieves as far as the Iraq war is concerned. and stalk someone else next time.
note to self:daleks memory banks appear to have been wiped clean.
all data concerning Iraq and party corruption and dodgy expense claims has been lost....shred!.... malfunction....does not compute.....abort! abort!....etc
what a fucking carry on, eh?
Thick:
I believe Largactil might be of some use to you. Feel free to take as many pills as you like until the voices in your head stop talking to you. And please stop talking to us you deranged cunt.
Post a Comment