That 'secret' government bill, allows them to change laws...
Discussion
I recall reading here a while back, a discussion about a bill the goverment were secretly trying to pass through while the media were swarming all other some other decoy story, possibly I.D cards or something similar. In the small print of this bill it effectively gave the governement free reign to change old laws and implement new ones as it saw fit, without discussion and without a need to vote.
Several times in the past few weeks I have noted PHers questioning how all these new regulations are being pushed through without public consultation, and it got me wondering, were the rumours about this 'secret bill' true, have they got it through and are they now reaping the benefits of being able to do what ever the hell they like? It certainly seems like it to me.
Does anyone have the links to the articles written on this? I don't recall enough to find anything on it, and seemingly it disappeared as quickly and quietly as it was discovered?
Several times in the past few weeks I have noted PHers questioning how all these new regulations are being pushed through without public consultation, and it got me wondering, were the rumours about this 'secret bill' true, have they got it through and are they now reaping the benefits of being able to do what ever the hell they like? It certainly seems like it to me.
Does anyone have the links to the articles written on this? I don't recall enough to find anything on it, and seemingly it disappeared as quickly and quietly as it was discovered?
esselte said:
rich1231 said:
Parliament Act?
No I think it was something else...can't the parliament act only be used after somethings been rejected 3 times by the Lords?Not sure about the exact Act you are thinking of, but it is known that almost all of the legislation passed in the last 10 years or so has been drafted in such a way that the basics are very broad and woolly, with the detail to be set out in Statutory Instruments which require/attract far less scrutiny and can be laid within days.
Asterix said:
esselte said:
rich1231 said:
Parliament Act?
No I think it was something else...can't the parliament act only be used after somethings been rejected 3 times by the Lords?The Parliament Act comes at the end of a long road of to-ing and fro-ing between the houses.
I don't recall a bill superceding the Parliament Act, but if the OP is right, it is very scary.
You're thinking of the Regulatory Reform Bill (aka "the abolition of parliament act").
It was droppped.
However, as Rude-Boy says, they have introduced many enabling acts which allow ministers to change the law without going to parliament first, (see Civil Contingencies Act) or which give enourmous power to unacountable public employees (see Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act). There are many others.
This is one of the many reasons why I hate them and why this government must be removed.
It was droppped.
However, as Rude-Boy says, they have introduced many enabling acts which allow ministers to change the law without going to parliament first, (see Civil Contingencies Act) or which give enourmous power to unacountable public employees (see Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act). There are many others.
This is one of the many reasons why I hate them and why this government must be removed.
I wish I could recall more about the Act/Bill in question, but the discussion at the time was that it could be used (probably wrongly, ala "The Terrorism Act")
to amend and create new laws without public consultation, which was rightly deemed to be a very dangerous thing to be passed though. It seemed that it all went quiet soon after, but now it seems like the government are beginning to stretch their legs a bit with it with new legislation coming in left right and centre.
Surely someone must recall something about this?
ETA: Someone does recall what I thought I had dreamt up...
to amend and create new laws without public consultation, which was rightly deemed to be a very dangerous thing to be passed though. It seemed that it all went quiet soon after, but now it seems like the government are beginning to stretch their legs a bit with it with new legislation coming in left right and centre.
Surely someone must recall something about this?
ETA: Someone does recall what I thought I had dreamt up...
Edited by Kozy on Tuesday 10th March 11:57
Kozy said:
I wish I could recall more about the Act/Bill in question, but the discussion at the time was that it could be used (probably wrongly, ala "The Terrorism Act")
to amend and create new laws without public consultation, which was rightly deemed to be a very dangerous thing to be passed though. It seemed that it all went quiet soon after, but now it seems like the government are beginning to stretch their legs a bit with it with new legislation coming in left right and centre.
Surely someone must recall something about this?
ETA: Someone does recall what I thought I had dreamt up...
I think it was the government's way of trying to take Parliament out of the loop....to amend and create new laws without public consultation, which was rightly deemed to be a very dangerous thing to be passed though. It seemed that it all went quiet soon after, but now it seems like the government are beginning to stretch their legs a bit with it with new legislation coming in left right and centre.
Surely someone must recall something about this?
ETA: Someone does recall what I thought I had dreamt up...
Edited by Kozy on Tuesday 10th March 11:57
This is all well and good (actually, er, it isn't, but you know what I mean). But, for all of the collective desire to kick Gordo out of office, how many of these laws the sneaky ones passed on the sly- do you think that david 'Call me Dave' Cameron will ACTUALLY repeal when he takes power?
You'll be able to count them on the fingers of one thumb!!!
You'll be able to count them on the fingers of one thumb!!!
tank slapper said:
It was the Civil Contingencies Act that I think the OP was referring to.
Further information here.
I believe that it did get watered down a bit, but not sure exactly which areas.
I wrote to my MP about it, and he actually agree with me and had argued against the bill in parliament.Further information here.
I believe that it did get watered down a bit, but not sure exactly which areas.
I also wrote to him a couple of weeks ago about implementation clause 152 of the information sharing act, and found that he too was appalled by it and had stood and fought in parliament against that one too. That one has also been re-written. In essence it was a change of legislation so that certain people, ministers etc, could access all your private information and use it as they felt like, pass it to others etc.
Browns mob are slowly but surely removing the Data Protection Act but they never actually broadcast what they are doing.
tank slapper said:
It was the Civil Contingencies Act that I think the OP was referring to.
Further information here.
I believe that it did get watered down a bit, but not sure exactly which areas.
That sounds about right. Has this/is this going through then?Further information here.
I believe that it did get watered down a bit, but not sure exactly which areas.
ETA: 2004 it would seem. I am clearly not too hot on the news...
Edited by Kozy on Tuesday 10th March 12:47
TVR Moneypit said:
What would Her Majesty say or do about it, as I understand she isn't a fan of this lot?
Would she dissolve parliment? Could she do so?
I'm guessing that the police would do as the goverment told them, but the armed forces? Don't they pledge alliegance to the crown and not the state?
There will be no Civil War, if that's what you're getting at. The Queen is only a titular ruler and is there on sufferance. I'm sure that if she ever tried to exercise her so-called 'power' she would very quickly be revealed to be a Paper Tiger. Would she dissolve parliment? Could she do so?
I'm guessing that the police would do as the goverment told them, but the armed forces? Don't they pledge alliegance to the crown and not the state?
JonRB said:
TVR Moneypit said:
What would Her Majesty say or do about it, as I understand she isn't a fan of this lot?
Would she dissolve parliment? Could she do so?
I'm guessing that the police would do as the goverment told them, but the armed forces? Don't they pledge alliegance to the crown and not the state?
There will be no Civil War, if that's what you're getting at. The Queen is only a titular ruler and is there on sufferance. I'm sure that if she ever tried to exercise her so-called 'power' she would very quickly be revealed to be a Paper Tiger. Would she dissolve parliment? Could she do so?
I'm guessing that the police would do as the goverment told them, but the armed forces? Don't they pledge alliegance to the crown and not the state?
tank slapper said:
It was the Civil Contingencies Act that I think the OP was referring to.
Further information here.
I believe that it did get watered down a bit, but not sure exactly which areas.
I'm guilty of over using the old cliche 'It don't matter who you vote for the Government all ways gets in'.Further information here.
I believe that it did get watered down a bit, but not sure exactly which areas.
Well this is a good example. The ministers that pushed this kind of legislation through know well they won't be in power for more that a year or two. They also know that a different party will eventually form the Government.
So who really benefit from these kind of acts. The civil servants really run the country and they manage to push through what ever kind of laws they like.
I'm not sure if that is really scary or perhaps for the best. Given the kind of idiots that aspire to become MPs.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff