Abolition of Parliament Act censured
A controversial bill that some have claimed lays the foundations for fascism and Nazism was given its second reading in Parliament last month. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill will give ministers power to amend or replace legislation without having to bring a Bill to Parliament.
The man behind this bill is Jim Murphy, Labour MP for East Renfrewshire, and a former president of the National Union of Students. Under his leadership, the NUS abandoned their opposition to the abolition of student grants in line with New Labour education policy.
The new proposals are meant to streamline the process of making new laws: instead of the current system of parliamentary debate, a minister will be able to enact a law simply by issuing an ‘order’. This is supposed to cut down on bureaucracy and help to update legislation that is perceived to be “outdated, unnecessary or over-complicated.”
It will, apparently, help British businesses who have to pay billions each year on regulation. Although similar powers are included in the existing Regulatory Reform Act 2001, they have been described as “too technical and limited” by the Cabinet Office.
So now the government want to remove most of the conditions and safeguards that make the existing bill inefficient, leaving just five clauses that control its use: it cannot be used to impose new taxes or to create a new crime punishable by over two years in prison. Neither can it be used to authorise any forcible entry, search or seizure, or compel the giving of evidence. The final two clauses limit its use in Scotland and on the functions of the Welsh Assembly.
There are further guidelines that are meant to control its use, such as a requirement that the new provision should not “prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom which that person might reasonably expect to continue to exercise” and a remarkably vague rule that “the effect of the provision [should be] proportionate to the policy objective.”
However, since only the minister involved has to be convinced of the answers, these already fuzzy guidelines could be interpreted as loosely as required.
The powers that the bill provides even extends to altering itself, so ministers could rewrite it to extend its potential even further and remove its constraints.
As six professors of law from Cambridge University pointed out in a letter to the Times, this bill could potentially be used to sack judges, authorise house arrest, abolish jury trial, rewrite laws on immigration or amend the Magna Carta.
Bizarrely, it has received very little attention in the main-stream press. Proposed the week before debates were held on ID cards, smoking in public places and the glorification of terror, it was drowned out by the weight of comment on these more media-friendly concerns.
But since this bill would enable Labour to pass each of these new laws without debate, perhaps the media should change tact.
Naturally, this Bill has provoked heavy criticism, and has even been compared to Hitler’s Enabling Act 1933 which gave Hitler’s cabinet the ability to enact new laws without consulting the Reichstag. Caroline Lucas MEP, speaking at the Green Party conference, dubbed it the “Abolition of Parliament Act”, a sentiment that, according to the Times, is echoed by many constitutional experts.
In response to these concerns, Mr Murphy assured Parliament that “the orders will not be used to implement highly controversial reforms.” However, a committee of MPs has rejected this assurance and has insisted that the bill must be redrafted to introduce “real restrictions to the government powers,” especially since future governments will not be bound by his promise. The bill still needs to pass a second reading and will most likely face opposition from the House of Lords.
