Legislative and regulatory reform bill
Paul Tavener, 01 Jun 2006 03:20:14
People may be interested in reading this:
http://www.saveparliament.org.uk/problem.html
Why worry about Parlimentary when you can get the Mionisters to do the work instead?
snowflake, 05 Jun 2006 08:55:18
On 31/05/06, admin@ofwatch.org.uk wrote:
> Why worry about Parlimentary when you can get the Mionisters to do the work instead?
It's a horrible bill, isn't it? It's now into the third reading and
despite efforts by the opposition, some back bench MPs (not mine, the
stupid woman actually believes the government's line) and pressure
groups to get this bill either scrapped or severely limited, it's
still being pushed ahead.
The government's line is that it's only for cutting down on beurocracy
and red tape. If this is the case, one has to ask why they refused to
add in clauses that would prevent the bill being used to amend:
1. The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001;
2. The Bail Act 1976;
3. The Bill of Rights 1688;
4. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994;
5. The European Communities Act 1972;
6. The Freedom of Information Act 2000;
7. The Government of Ireland Act 1920;
8. The Government of Wales Act 2006;
9. The Government of Wales Act 1998;
10. The Habeas Corpus Acts 1679 to 1862 (aka "the right not to be
arbitrarily arrested");
11. The House of Lords Act 1999;
12. The Magna Carta 1215;
13. The Statute of Westminster 1931;
14. The Succession to the Crown Act 1707;
15. The Terrorism Act 2000;
16. The Terrorism Act 2006;
17. The Union with England Act 1707;
18. The Union with Scotland Act 1706;
19. The Welsh Church Disestablishment Act 1914.
Now I'll admit I'm not a legally trained person of any description
(I'm a nuclear physicist by training and a civil servant by
occupation) but I have to wonder how much beurocratic red tape in the
Magna Carta, for example, or the Terrorism Act 2000/2006 is actually
hampering business and preventing the UK from competing in business on
a local or international scale. Last time I looked, there wasn't any.
The government is lying at every level about what this bill is for.
Zoe
Teddy, 05 Jun 2006 20:56:21
In terms of the EP proposals, does this mean the government will be able to use this to rubber-stamp Options 1 or 2 into law without any parliamentary vote? Admittedly, new legislation (namely option 3) is their stated preference.
T.
Author wrote:
> On 31/05/06, admin@ofwatch.org.uk wrote:
>
> > Why worry about Parlimentary when you can get the Mionisters to do the work instead?
> It's a horrible bill, isn't it? It's now into the third reading and
> despite efforts by the opposition, some back bench MPs (not mine, the
> stupid woman actually believes the government's line) and pressure
> groups to get this bill either scrapped or severely limited, it's
> still being pushed ahead.
> The government's line is that it's only for cutting down on beurocracy
> and red tape. If this is the case, one has to ask why they refused to
> add in clauses that would prevent the bill being used to amend:
> 1. The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001;
> 2. The Bail Act 1976;
> 3. The Bill of Rights 1688;
> 4. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994;
> 5. The European Communities Act 1972;
> 6. The Freedom of Information Act 2000;
> 7. The Government of Ireland Act 1920;
> 8. The Government of Wales Act 2006;
> 9. The Government of Wales Act 1998;
> 10. The Habeas Corpus Acts 1679 to 1862 (aka "the right not to be
> arbitrarily arrested");
> 11. The House of Lords Act 1999;
> 12. The Magna Carta 1215;
> 13. The Statute of Westminster 1931;
> 14. The Succession to the Crown Act 1707;
> 15. The Terrorism Act 2000;
> 16. The Terrorism Act 2006;
> 17. The Union with England Act 1707;
> 18. The Union with Scotland Act 1706;
> 19. The Welsh Church Disestablishment Act 1914.
> Now I'll admit I'm not a legally trained person of any description
> (I'm a nuclear physicist by training and a civil servant by
> occupation) but I have to wonder how much beurocratic red tape in the
> Magna Carta, for example, or the Terrorism Act 2000/2006 is actually
> hampering business and preventing the UK from competing in business on
> a local or international scale. Last time I looked, there wasn't any.
> The government is lying at every level about what this bill is for.
> Zoe
Paul Tavener, 05 Jun 2006 23:19:04
They can only make changes which will put people in prison for a maximum of 2 years and they 'promise' that they won't do anything controversial - so we're as safe. Well as safe as a man walking a tightrope over an open mineshaft.
Author wrote:
> In terms of the EP proposals, does this mean the government will be able to use this to rubber-stamp Options 1 or 2 into law without any parliamentary vote? Admittedly, new legislation (namely option 3) is their stated preference.
> T.
> Author wrote:
> > On 31/05/06, admin@ofwatch.org.uk wrote:
> >
> > > Why worry about Parlimentary when you can get the Mionisters to do the work instead?
> > It's a horrible bill, isn't it? It's now into the third reading and
> > despite efforts by the opposition, some back bench MPs (not mine, the
> > stupid woman actually believes the government's line) and pressure
> > groups to get this bill either scrapped or severely limited, it's
> > still being pushed ahead.
> > The government's line is that it's only for cutting down on beurocracy
> > and red tape. If this is the case, one has to ask why they refused to
> > add in clauses that would prevent the bill being used to amend:
> > 1. The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001;
> > 2. The Bail Act 1976;
> > 3. The Bill of Rights 1688;
> > 4. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994;
> > 5. The European Communities Act 1972;
> > 6. The Freedom of Information Act 2000;
> > 7. The Government of Ireland Act 1920;
> > 8. The Government of Wales Act 2006;
> > 9. The Government of Wales Act 1998;
> > 10. The Habeas Corpus Acts 1679 to 1862 (aka "the right not to be
> > arbitrarily arrested");
> > 11. The House of Lords Act 1999;
> > 12. The Magna Carta 1215;
> > 13. The Statute of Westminster 1931;
> > 14. The Succession to the Crown Act 1707;
> > 15. The Terrorism Act 2000;
> > 16. The Terrorism Act 2006;
> > 17. The Union with England Act 1707;
> > 18. The Union with Scotland Act 1706;
> > 19. The Welsh Church Disestablishment Act 1914.
> > Now I'll admit I'm not a legally trained person of any description
> > (I'm a nuclear physicist by training and a civil servant by
> > occupation) but I have to wonder how much beurocratic red tape in the
> > Magna Carta, for example, or the Terrorism Act 2000/2006 is actually
> > hampering business and preventing the UK from competing in business on
> > a local or international scale. Last time I looked, there wasn't any.
> > The government is lying at every level about what this bill is for.
> > Zoe
snowflake, 07 Jun 2006 13:24:07
On 05/06/06, Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> In terms of the EP proposals, does this mean the government will be able to use this to rubber-stamp Options 1 or 2 into law without any parliamentary vote? Admittedly, new legislation (namely option 3) is their stated preference.
This bill allows the creation of new crimes with a maximum jail term
of two years or the alteration of all existing legislation, bar the
Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill and the Human Rights Act.
Zoe