Emergency legislation - information and commentary
Discussion
Here are the emergency regulations that compel the closure of pubs and other places in England. They have been made by the Secretary of State for Health using what lawyers call a Henry VIII power, contained in an Act of Parliament. The Regulations came into effect at 2pm on 21 March 2020.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/327/pdfs/u...
I distrust the present Government. I am concerned that a Government led by a man of no discernible principles or moral character is going to have emergency powers. BUT, having said that, so far this emergency legislation is in a classic British form. It is time limited, and it appears proportionate to the need to stop idiots like Tim Martin and his idiotic customers continuing to behave in a socially irresponsible way.
Let's see what happens next.
BTW, Henry VIII powers are so called because the English king of that name ruled in an authoritarian manner, partly because of a revamp of the civil service during his reign (the so called, debunked, un-debunked, re-bunked "Tudor Revolution In Government"). There is debate whether Henry VIII was more or less effective as a despot than his predecessors or successors, but his name is the one that gets associated with the making of rules by Ministers as opposed to Parliament. Also shagging and eating a lot of pies.
Henry VIII powers are controversial. They are not very democratic. Theresa May once argued in Court that rules she made as Home Secretary trumped an Act of Parliament. The Court disagreed with her. Henry VIII powers are already numerous, but they are set to become more numerous as Brexit takes its course. In the shorter term, they can be expected to be used a lot whilst the current crisis continues. The question always is whether a Government that takes powers will later release those powers. During WW2 the Government was a cross-party National Unity Government. Anyway, we shall see.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/327/pdfs/u...
I distrust the present Government. I am concerned that a Government led by a man of no discernible principles or moral character is going to have emergency powers. BUT, having said that, so far this emergency legislation is in a classic British form. It is time limited, and it appears proportionate to the need to stop idiots like Tim Martin and his idiotic customers continuing to behave in a socially irresponsible way.
Let's see what happens next.
BTW, Henry VIII powers are so called because the English king of that name ruled in an authoritarian manner, partly because of a revamp of the civil service during his reign (the so called, debunked, un-debunked, re-bunked "Tudor Revolution In Government"). There is debate whether Henry VIII was more or less effective as a despot than his predecessors or successors, but his name is the one that gets associated with the making of rules by Ministers as opposed to Parliament. Also shagging and eating a lot of pies.
Henry VIII powers are controversial. They are not very democratic. Theresa May once argued in Court that rules she made as Home Secretary trumped an Act of Parliament. The Court disagreed with her. Henry VIII powers are already numerous, but they are set to become more numerous as Brexit takes its course. In the shorter term, they can be expected to be used a lot whilst the current crisis continues. The question always is whether a Government that takes powers will later release those powers. During WW2 the Government was a cross-party National Unity Government. Anyway, we shall see.
I share your suspicions. What I find particularly interesting is that the legislation restricting individual liberties is highly detailed. This contrasts with the "make it up as we go along" approach which characterises other measures, such as school closures which had long been identified as a potential contingency but when announced is unable to answer basic questions like defining a key worker.
This is nothing to do with "Henry VIII powers". This is standard secondary legislation, as these regulations are simply exercising powers conferred by the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984.
The government issued 1,410 such regulations in 2018. An example is the The A55 Trunk Road (Junction 1 (Kingsland Roundabout), Holyhead, Isle of Anglesey to east of Junction 11 (Llys y Gwynt Interchange), Bangor, Gwynedd) (Temporary Traffic Restrictions & Prohibition) Order 2018.
Voting on all these in parliament would be ridiculous. Parliament can always amend the primary legislation under which such orders are made.
"Henry VIII powers" refer to changes made to *primary* legislation without the involvement of parliament, and are rarely used.
The government issued 1,410 such regulations in 2018. An example is the The A55 Trunk Road (Junction 1 (Kingsland Roundabout), Holyhead, Isle of Anglesey to east of Junction 11 (Llys y Gwynt Interchange), Bangor, Gwynedd) (Temporary Traffic Restrictions & Prohibition) Order 2018.
Voting on all these in parliament would be ridiculous. Parliament can always amend the primary legislation under which such orders are made.
"Henry VIII powers" refer to changes made to *primary* legislation without the involvement of parliament, and are rarely used.
Edited by jamei303 on Sunday 22 March 09:26
But only apply to England.
Meanwhile there is this Bill (rather than Regulation)
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/...
which has its second reading on Monday 23rd March 2020.
Meanwhile there is this Bill (rather than Regulation)
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/...
which has its second reading on Monday 23rd March 2020.
barian said:
I will stay out of this particular debate, but reading the legislation again I was surprised (I will not say disappointed) to note that massage parlours are required to close. Do these involve much in the way of social interaction?
It is NOT legislation, it is a Regulation added to previous legislation.Getting away from the pedantry about what it is or is not.
Given the entitled attitude shown by a significant proportion of the population further far more draconian measures are not only likely they in my opinion are necessary if we are to get a handle on this current situation.
The question is can we rely on government to relax them afterwards or will we need our opposition to step up?
Given the entitled attitude shown by a significant proportion of the population further far more draconian measures are not only likely they in my opinion are necessary if we are to get a handle on this current situation.
The question is can we rely on government to relax them afterwards or will we need our opposition to step up?
i have no issue with the laws, the issues i have are they being used to protect the NHS legacy, not failing on their watch, or to save peoples lives? Giving money out to ensure they get voted back in, not everyone is getting support. There should be cross party involvement in these things.
barian said:
I will stay out of this particular debate, but reading the legislation again I was surprised (I will not say disappointed) to note that massage parlours are required to close. Do these involve much in the way of social interaction?
Well, I own one. Not the saucy type but a health and beauty spa. The social interaction is massive-a girl who can be giving a close personal contact massage can then be doing nails, making a coffee, applying make up etc etc.All in a venue with dozens of people coming and going in one day.
I think technically I could have shut down the massage side to keep ahead of the legislation but I felt I couldn't guarantee the safety of everyone and ordered the shut down on Friday afternoon.
barian said:
Pica-Pica said:
It is NOT legislation, it is a Regulation added to previous legislation.
Thank you. I am sure this is an important clarification.
As you can see, this regulation has 4 pages, the Bill I mentioned has 300-odd pages.
My bad! I blame West to East jet lag and inadequate coffee drinking. My paintbrush was too too broad. Not all rule-making powers conferred by Statute are of equal concern, and the Henry VIII concern in an emergency or non-emergency situation arises from amending powers that are subject to minimal scrutiny by Parliament. As a Constitution geek, however, I have always been concerned by the heavy reliance that British Government places on Ministerial rule making, and that concern is the greater when we have an emergency, and a partisan Government. I would say the same whichever party formed that Government.
The Bill is another thing altogether. The Civil Contingencies Act 2004, a controversial product of the Blair era, contains various requirements for Parliament to ratify decisions. The present Government prefers to introduce its own legislation rather than rely on that already in place. Over legislation has been a thing for the last few decades. No doubt there is a need for action, but the people behind the action do not have records for being trustworthy types. Perhaps they will show that they are.
The Bill is another thing altogether. The Civil Contingencies Act 2004, a controversial product of the Blair era, contains various requirements for Parliament to ratify decisions. The present Government prefers to introduce its own legislation rather than rely on that already in place. Over legislation has been a thing for the last few decades. No doubt there is a need for action, but the people behind the action do not have records for being trustworthy types. Perhaps they will show that they are.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 22 March 14:16
Yup, same here. Some erosion of civil liberties is inevitable, but we hope it will be temporary. The Regulations that came into force on 21 March are limited, sensible, and proportionate. The Bill is more perturbing, and the question of duration is a live one.
Perhaps I judge Johnson unfairly, but I do not think that I do, based on his track record. Cummings appears to be at the least a dangerous fool, and Cummings gives the impression, correctly or otherwise, of being the person in charge. Even if he is not ill intentioned, he does seem to be rather ill informed, and prey to contrarian positions and whacky ideas.
Perhaps I judge Johnson unfairly, but I do not think that I do, based on his track record. Cummings appears to be at the least a dangerous fool, and Cummings gives the impression, correctly or otherwise, of being the person in charge. Even if he is not ill intentioned, he does seem to be rather ill informed, and prey to contrarian positions and whacky ideas.
barian said:
I will stay out of this particular debate, but reading the legislation again I was surprised (I will not say disappointed) to note that massage parlours are required to close. Do these involve much in the way of social interaction?
I shall commission some research into this urgent and pressing question. I hope that this research ends happily. Breadvan72 said:
barian said:
I will stay out of this particular debate, but reading the legislation again I was surprised (I will not say disappointed) to note that massage parlours are required to close. Do these involve much in the way of social interaction?
I shall commission some research into this urgent and pressing question. I hope that this research ends happily. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff