Abolition of Parliament Bill
The Abolition of Parliament BillMichael Nield, 8th April 2006
It's here. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill confirms the nation's worst fears about the current regime entrenched in No.10. Blair intends to do away with Parliament altogether.
The Bill was introduced to the House of Commons by the Cabinet Office on 11th January. It purports to be an efficiency measure, based on the recommendations of Government departments and the the Better Regulation Task Force. Cabinet Office Minister Jim Murphy told Parliament that, "the Bill is intended to maintain the UK�s competitiveness, free up public sector workers and others from bureaucracy, and remove unnecessary regulation.�
So why then does it give the Government power to create new laws and to amend every piece of legislation on the Statute book, without Parliamentary approval? The only limitations on these powers are that it cannot:
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. Yet, the proposed Act itself is not protected from amendment, allowing the Government to remove these limitations and transfer all legislative power permanently to itself.
Not surprisingly law professors and media commentators have been sounding the alarm bells. Dubbed the "Abolition of Parliament Bill" it has been likened to the Enabling Act, which allowed Hitler to rule Germany by decree.
The Bill is already at the Committee stage so there is urgent need to rally public opposition. The Tories and Lib Dems have pledged to oppose the Bill unless proposed amendments are accepted.
Whether Labour backbenchers will choose to legislate themselves out of a job, is the critical question. Writing to your M.P. is therefore especially important if you have a Labour M.P., and even more so if you have one who tends to rebel against the Government. Find out if your M.P. is a rebel at theyworkforyou.com.
It's hard to believe that we've sunk to the level where we have to write to our M.P.s asking them not to set up a dictatorship in Britain. SaveParliament.org.uk is fighting the Bill and provides much more information and campaigning tools.
Interestingly, these developments have been synchronized with those across the pond. President Bush has been caught signing bills that Congress hasn't passed. Former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury, Paul Craig Roberts, recently wrote,
President Bush has used "signing statements" hundreds of times to vitiate the meaning of statutes passed by Congress. In effect, Bush is vetoing the bills he signs into law by asserting unilateral authority as commander-in-chief to bypass or set aside the laws he signs. For example, Bush has asserted that he has the power to ignore the McCain amendment against torture, to ignore the law that requires a warrant to spy on Americans, to ignore the prohibition against indefinite detention without charges or trial, and to ignore the Geneva Conventions to which the US is signatory.
In effect, Bush is asserting the powers that accrued to Hitler in 1933. His Federalist Society apologists and Department of Justice appointees claim that President Bush has the same power to interpret the Constitution as the Supreme Court.
The push for ID Cards has also been internationally synchronized. The British Government planned to introduce biometric ID cards in 2008, the same year as the American Government planned to compel states to design driver's licences with biometric identifiers, under the Real ID Act. Many European countries already have ID cards, but the European Union has mandated biometric identifiers on passports, visas and residence permits.
As we travel around the globe we'll be registered on these databases. Soon these will be merged in to a single global surveillance system.
How can advocates of such technology maintain that democratic checks and balances will prevent it being misused, when at the same time, these checks and balances are being stripped away globally?
David Rockefeller admitted in his memoirs that there is a secret international cabal working behind the scenes to bring about "one world". The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill reveals what kind of world it will be.
Further Resources
Who wants the Abolition of Parliament Bill?
David Howarth, The Times
21st February 2006
Hardly anyone has noticed, but British democracy is sleepwalking into a sinister world of ministerial power.
LAST WEEK all eyes were on the House of Commons as it debated identity cards, smoking and terrorism. The media reported both what MPs said and how they voted. For one week at least, the Commons mattered.
All the more peculiar then that the previous Thursday, in an almost deserted chamber, the Government proposed an extraordinary Bill that will drastically reduce parliamentary discussion of future laws, a Bill some constitutional experts are already calling �the Abolition of Parliament Bill�.
A couple of journalists noticed, including Daniel Finkelstein of The Times, and a couple more pricked up their ears last week when I highlighted some biting academic criticism of the Bill on the letters page of this paper. But beyond those rarefied circles, that we are sleepwalking into a new and sinister world of ministerial power seems barely to have registered.
The boring title of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill hides an astonishing proposal. It gives ministers power to alter any law passed by Parliament. The only limitations are that new crimes cannot be created if the penalty is greater than two years in prison and that it cannot increase taxation. But any other law can be changed, no matter how important. All ministers will have to do is propose an order, wait a few weeks and, voilà, the law is changed.
For ministers the advantages are obvious: no more tedious debates in which they have to answer awkward questions. Instead of a full day�s debate on the principle of the proposal, detailed line-by-line examination in committee, a second chance at specific amendment in the Commons and a final debate and vote, ministers will have to face at most a short debate in a committee and a one-and-a-half hour debate on the floor. Frequently the Government will face less than that. No amendments will be allowed. The legislative process will be reduced to a game of take-it-or-leave-it.
The Bill replaces an existing law that allows ministers to relieve regulatory burdens. Business was enthusiastic about that principle and the Government seems to have convinced the business lobby that the latest Bill is just a new, improved version. What makes the new law different, however, is not only that it allows the Government to create extra regulation, including new crimes, but also that it allows ministers to change the structure of government itself. There might be business people so attached to the notion of efficiency and so ignorant or scornful of the principles of democracy that they find such a proposition attractive. Ordinary citizens should find it alarming.
Any body created by statute, including local authorities, the courts and even companies, might find themselves reorganised or even abolished. Since the powers of the House of Lords are defined in Acts of Parliament, even they are subject to the Bill.
Looking back at last week�s business in the Commons, the Bill makes a mockery of the decisions MPs took. Carrying ID cards could be made compulsory, smoking in one�s own home could be outlawed and the definition of terrorism altered to make ordinary political protest punishable by life imprisonment. Nor will the Human Rights Act save us since the Bill makes no exception for it.
The Bill, bizarrely, even applies to itself, so that ministers could propose orders to remove the limitations about two-year sentences and taxation. It also includes a few desultory questions (along the lines of �am I satisfied that I am doing the right thing?�) that ministers have to ask themselves before proceeding, all drafted subjectively so that court challenges will fail, no matter how preposterous the minister�s answer. Even these questions can be removed using the Bill�s own procedure. Indeed, at its most extreme, in a manoeuvre akin to a legislative Indian rope trick, ministers could use it to transfer all legislative power permanently to themselves.
The Bill raises fundamental questions about the role of Parliament. Ministers, egged on, some suspect, by the Civil Service, treat Parliament as a voting machine. Its job, in their view, is merely to give legal cover to whatever ministers want to do. They treat debate and deliberation as mere chatter before the all-important vote. They see no great difference between full parliamentary procedure and a truncated procedure for statutory instruments because, for them, the result either way is the same, that ministers receive legal authority for their plans. Just as a perfect criminal statute for ministers appears to be one in which everything is illegal so that prosecutors have discretion to put anyone in front of a court, a perfect authorising statute is one that makes lawful any ministerial act or policy.
Some of us have a different view. We think that deliberation and debate matter, that they are part of what makes parliamentary democracy work and make the new laws we pass legitimate. Deliberation improves legislation but more importantly, it forces governments to give reasons for their proposals that go beyond their narrow self-interest. In private meetings of the governing party, or in the Cabinet, or above all in telephone calls between ministers and special advisers, purely partisan reasons can hold sway. But in public, especially where there is real debate, ministers have to offer reasons that might persuade others. If they cannot think of any such reasons, their embarrassment constrains them. As the political scientist Jon Elster says, even hypocrisy can have a civilising effect.
The Government claims that there is nothing to worry about. The powers in the Bill, it says, will not be used for �controversial� matters. But there is nothing in the Bill that restricts its use to �uncontroversial� issues. The minister is asking us to trust him, and, worse, to trust all his colleagues and all their successors. No one should be trusted with such power.
As James Madison gave warning in The Federalist Papers, we should remember when handing out political power that �enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm�. This Bill should make one doubt whether they are at the helm now.
David Howarth is Liberal Democrat MP for Cambridge and Reader in Law at Cambridge University
Letters to the Editor
The Times
16th February 2006
Legislative reform
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
The rejected amendment
by Unity, Liberty Central
14th March 2006
One of the more startling things to have taken place during the early stages of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill�s passage through Parliament came during the committee stages of the bill, when opposition members attempted to put forward amendments which make a further forty-four Acts of Parliament exempt from the provisions of part one of the bill; the part which enables ministers to make, amend and repeal legislation without going through the full process of Parliamentary scrutiny.
These amendments were rejected, in their entirety, by the government.
To say the least, the list put forward by the opposition, makes for interesting reading, as it contains virtually every Act of Parliament of major constitutional significance, together with a considerable number of Acts whose provisions impact directly on the civil liberties of British citizens; all of which makes it well worth taking a quick look at what this list contains:
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
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.
Looking at just some of these Acts, one has to wonder quite justification the government can have not making them exempt from the provisions of part one of this bill, which affords Ministers unprecedented powers to make, amend and repeal legislation with the minimum of Parliamentary scrutiny.
Amongst the various matters that the government are currently unwilling to exempt from this bill are:
Every single protection against the arbitrary and unlawful detention of citizens by the state (Habeas Corpus Acts, Bail Act, Human Rights Act);
The independence of the Scottish judiciary and legal system (Act of Union);
The Monarchy (Act of Settlement, Succession to the Crown Act, Claim of Right);
Parliamentary democracy (Representation of the People Acts, House of Lords Act. Parliamentary Constituencies Act, Ministers of the Crown Act, Parliament Acts);
Devolved government in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (Scotland Act, Government of Wales Acts, Government of Ireland Act);
The independence of Canada, Australia and New Zealand � no seriously, this is in the Statute of Westminster � plus about a dozen other �Commonwealth Realms�, including Jamaica, the Bahamas and Papua New Guinea.
And that�s just a few of highlights � without even getting in Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights.
To be slightly critical of the opposition amendment, it does seem to be missing a couple of other Act of Parliament that should be included in the list of exemptions.
The �Prosecution of Offenders Act�, which sets out the powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Crown Prosecution Service, etc.
The Inquiries Act - abysmal though it is � which sets the regulations for public and judicial inquiries into government and the State.
The Magistrates� Courts Act, and a couple of other related acts governing proceedings in magistrates� courts.
The Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act.
In fact, the more you look at what�s actually on the statue books, the more Acts you�ll find that really don�t want Minister�s to have the power to alter near enough arbitrarily � what about the Extradition Act? Or the Obscene Publications Act? Or the Contempt of Court Act? Or�
In case you�ve missed the start of this whole debate, this is how the purpose of the bill was described by Cabinet Officer Minister, Jim Murphy, at the start of its committee stage:
�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.�
So why does a bill that is supposedly designed to �maintain the UK�s competitiveness, free up public sector workers and others from bureaucracy, and remove unnecessary regulation� need to include the power to amend core constitutional legislation?
Does the government think that Scotland�s constitutional right to its own independent judiciary is �uncompetitive�?
Is Habeas Corpus an �unnecessary regulation�?
And as for freeing up public sector workers and others from bureaucracy, lets no forget that this from a government that�s having to write off £130 million in overpayments on its pension credits scheme arising out of its own staff being unable to handle their own forms correctly.
There may well be a case for short-circuiting normal Parliamentary processes where there genuinely are regulations that need culling in order strip away layers of unnecessary bureaucracy, but that case has to be based on having legislation which clearly defines the circumstances in which it is permissible; the guiding principle of any such bill should be that legislation which can be amended using a truncated process should be specified by inclusion � a bill for this purpose should include a schedule which lists precisely which Act of Parliament are subject to amendment by such a method, not operate on the basis of handing Ministers a blank legislative cheque with only very few exclusions.
Instead what we have is the ultimate piece of �Swiss Army Knife� legislation; an enabling bill of such all-encompassing power that not even the national government of 1939 to 1945, a government which faced the very real threat of invasion by a foreign power, had such sweeping powers to legislate without effective Parliamentary scrutiny. There is only one valid response to the bill, and that is to vote it down at every single turn, in its entirety, and send the clearest possible message to government, telling it to go away and come back with something specific to the purpose for which it claims the bill is intended, and not an all-purpose enabling bill.