Didn't quite know where to put this but thought it might interest some.

Want to push through controversial legislation? Fed up of truculent backbench opposition? Frustrated by non-compliant judiciary? Hacked off by pesky members of the upper chamber?

Well, introducing brand shiny new Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill 2006, currently at committee stage. Reaches into hard to reach places and blasts away stubborn opposition. Yes, this novel piece of legislation will allow a government minister by the use of statutory instrument to amend, replace or repeal any primary legislation or rule of law, or, to extend already existing powers.

Want to sack an independent minded judge? Well, come on down! Want to repeal the Habeus Corpus Act? Well, come on down! Want the Home Secretary to have the power to place someone under house arrest? Well, come on down? Want to amend the Admin Act to make all overpayments recoverable? Well, come on down!

What’s that you say? Surely there must be some safeguards. Well, yes there are. Any measure proposed must be proportionate to the aim. But who decides what is proportionate? Why, a government minister of course!

Also, the Act is subject to itself. By that, I mean that a government minister may, by statutory instrument, remove any or all safeguards from the Act. Clever eh!

Any of this sound familiar? Well in 1649 Parliament executed a king for trying to rule without it. In Germany in 1933 the democratically elected National Socialist Party passed the Enabling Act, allowing the Reich chancellor to make any law without reference to the Reichstag. Scary eh!

I share your concerns about this Bill and have been quite surprised that it has been able to make such steady progress with so little commentary about the possible adverse effects that this legislation would allow for. I think this is particularly pertinent when you consider the fact that this current government has passed more laws in its term of office than were passed in the prior 700 years!

It is simply astonishing that the government will be allowed to amend, repeal or replace all primary and secondary legislation, and virtually without challenge. I found a good briefing on the Bill pdf briefing.

Why are you astonished?

This is a government led by "trust me - I'm Tony".

They have rased to an art form (and even I'm impressed by how well they do it)
Never admit a mistake.
Policy is always perfect.
Changes made are always an improvement.
The JC+ and DMA are performing adequately.

With a government who apparently believe these things - why not go the extra mile and give yourself omnipitent legal powers as well.

The only astonishing thing (and truly depressing) is that a pretty big chunk of the British public swallow it!!

Hi Paul, Derek

I stumbled across this by accident through a link on a web page. As Paul says I am also struck by how little attention this has received. There are some interesting articles online that have appeared in some of the broadsheets: but for crying out loud this should be the lead item nightly on channel 4 news and newsnight for months until there is not a single person in the land who has not heard about it.

To any who might say we are worrying unnecessarily, then it is not today that we need to worry about necessarily, or even tomorrow, but the day after tomorrow. Remember, the boy who cried wolf was right eventually.

some background ...... http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=1246&mode=full

Ha! from Shawn's post on other thread "This will allow the Government to deliver reform of outdated or over-complicated legislation more quickly" - what, those outmoded concepts like the right to a trial by jury as well as prevention of political intervention within the judiciary?

Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you.

If this bill goes through then we will have moved from a (sleep)walk into a police state into a trot.

Can you still emigrate to Australia for a tenner?

the Lords were pretty much left to be the only line of resistence to ID cards - now that's lost, pasport renewal will cost £93 quid, whether you opt in or out of the 'voluntary'ID card.

Condi's 'state visiting' in the north west (????) and apparently takes the view that democracy is working if she is met with demonstrations everywhere...

pretty much the same as Blair...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,,1743894,00.html

i went to see V for Vendetta last night, which i enjoyed hugely, but noticed it was in the smallest cinema at the multiplex, with a tiny audience. good stuff though...

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

i prefer the " people should not fear their government. Governments should fear their people." version of democracy - although i'd rather take the 'fear' out altogether...

still, if i were jack straw, i'd try very hard not to be in any photos with Condi! oops! too late!

Below is an extract from the bill itself (to be found on the House of commons website) - the wording in (2) is bad enough, but the wording and intention as set out in (3)(a) & (b) could not be clearer or more worrying:-

(3) An order under section 1 may for the purpose specified in subsection (1)(b) of
that section also make—
(a) provision amending or abolishing any rule of law;
(b) provision codifying rules of law.

Any Minister in a Government with a healthy majority would be able to do just that - to my way of thinking what is being proposed is nothing less than a constitutional change. Only Parliament should have the power to enact or abolish primary legislation: if this bill is passed, that power will be devolved to individuals to use as they wish almost.....or can someone give a more positive reading ?

======================================================================

(2) Provision under subsection (1) may amend, repeal or replace legislation in any
way that an Act might, and in particular may amend, repeal or replace
legislation so as to—
(a) confer functions on any person (including functions of legislating or
functions relating to the charging of fees);
(b) modify the functions conferred on any person by legislation;
(c) transfer, or provide for the transfer or delegation of, the functions
conferred on any person by legislation.
This is subject to sections 4 to 7.
(3) An order under section 1 may for the purpose specified in subsection (1)(b) of
that section also make—
(a) provision amending or abolishing any rule of law;
(b) provision codifying rules of law.
(4) An order under section 1 may make such consequential, supplementary,
incidental or transitional provision (including provision amending, repealing
or replacing any legislation or other provision) as the Minister making it
considers appropriate.

Benign Dictatorship or more frighteningly Blair Dictatorship just around the corner?

Just take a close look at this Bill and then look at other Acts that have recently been passed "In the interests of National Security" and then come to your own conclusions - Orwell was right in his vision, just a little too early ...........

What I find incredible is that the protections in the Bill don't even seem to eliminate the creation of or increased punishment of criminal offences up to a certain limit (see s.6).

With regard to the abolition of any rule of law, how long will it be before the presumption of innocence is inverted, say in extreme cases like terrorism for instance. Then once generally accepted in principle it is easier to make the case for its exension to other kinds of cases.

A bit like the current presumption of fraud amongst benefit claimants, you mean?

A very telling example

This was raised in the BBC radio 4 programme 'Law in action' in the last two or three weeks and might be available via the listen again facilty if any one is interested.