Justice Secretary Jack Straw appeared before the Constitution Committee yesterday for his annual meeting with the committee. One of the issues he was pressed on was the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill. As I pointed out, the Bill was getting bigger and bigger as the time to deal with it got less and less.
The Bill was published in draft, as the Constitutional Renewal Bill, in 2008 and considered by a Joint Committee. I was a member of the Joint Committee and we worked extremely hard in order to produce our report – I think a very good report – by the end of July 2008. As Jack Straw conceded yesterday, despite the hard work of the committee, the Bill was not introduced until a year later. It has since had a slow passage through the Commons and has not yet left the House. Given that the Lords has business scheduled for the next two weeks, the earliest the Bill could receive a Second Reading is in the week commencing 15 March. Given the gaps that the House imposes between stages of a Bill, there is no way that the Bill could be through the House in what remains of the Parliament. Assuming an election on 6 May, the House will rise just before or after Easter. That means the House has about fifteen legislating days remaining, with six of those already accounted for.
This means that the Bill will go into the wash up. Jack Straw conceded yesterday that the Government had its priorities as to which parts of the Bill they would wish to push for acceptance in the wash up. However, it does raise a fundamental issue of principle as to whether a major Bill that has not had all its provisions considered in detail in Parliament – the Commons did not have time to debate all provisions of the Bill – should be permitted to pass, either in whole or part.
Had the Government introduced the Bill several months earlier than it did, it would not have got into such a mess. No explanation was forthcoming yesterday as to why the Government allowed itself to get into this situation.
Clearly, if a bill hasn’t had enough time to be discussed, it shouldn’t be allowed to be passed. Whatever. End of. Ask anyone on the street and I’m sure they’ll agree.
Sorry LN I am not having much joy getting that .pdf.
It may just be busy. I’ll try again later, since I would like to read the report you have worked on., and comment
Gareth Howell: I have just tried the link and it appears to be working. The link is:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200708/jtselect/jtconren/166/166.pdf
The link works for me too.
Bless you Father!
Got it and read it. It’s not going to get lost though, even though the time is running out; it is just soooooo minutious in its detail!
Pity not to get that Bl***y thing out of the way!!!!
Ponsonby rule and the meaning of “treaty” and “ratification” are interesting.
Quite why there should be so much stress on the civil service in such a bill I can not imagine. Ah. It’s the “and governance” bit.
I hope nobody has to go through all that work again!! Mind bending! argghh!
It’s not alone in having the problem that the Commons has failed to discuss all of it. I would hope that as a rule, any clause of any Bill that has not had chance for proper debate in the Commons should automatically be barred from being accepted in the wash-up.
I think the government shot itself in the foot by proposing so much legislation in November and should now suffer the consequences, this being far preferable to us suffering the consequences of flawed legislation.
I haven’t really looked at this Bill, but I bet the parts that Jack Straw and the government will be pushing will be the ones that give them the most party political advantage (or the other parties the biggest disadvantage).
There has to be a way of formally protesting this. This is certainly not how Parliament tells the people how Bills progress to become law.
http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage_bill/index.htm
It is incomprehensible that 200 Lords are forbidden from having any say in this absurdity let alone the fact that bills do not receive the correct and proper scrutiny that the British people would expect and are entitled to.
If Her Majesty is looking in, or a Royal servant please do not give assent to these undemocratic bills passed by way of a back door in our reasonable democracy. We have built a system that is reasonably fair and democratic only to see it thrown out of the window when Government may be at it`s lowest ebb.
Would it be fair and just if Juries suffered similar ? Exclude upto 50% for being independent, put a time limit on them and then do not let them hear all the evidence ?
I`m going to lay here and protest, peaceably. If necessary I shall handcuff myself to the blog until this undemocratic nonesense, this wheeling and dealing in the law that rules my life desists and is taken seriously with proper due process.
CH: “It is incomprehensible that 200 Lords are forbidden from having any say in this absurdity” Gadzooks, you seem to have hit the nail on the head!
These 200 Lords are appointed not elected. It has been Parliaments practice to elect all of its members for over 700 years to stop cronyism. Why should these peers have any power at all to stop this? They are simply appointed bureaucrats put in place to serve Commons legislative ambition.
As for the Monarchy, the thorn in its side for centuries is nicely tucked out of the way so it can enjoy power by proxy through the Commons. Only elected nobility (senators) can deal effectively with both of these estates.
I’m wary of the wash-up. My understanding is that it was originally intended to make certain that essential legislation got passed before an election (e.g. the bill on freezing terrorist’s finances, although considering the government’s record on civil liberties that might be a bad example) not for passing laws that can wait and would benefit from greater scrutiny.
Dave H: I had always assumed Labour had put forward a massive legislative agenda knowing they would never pass it all. That way they could take the credit for trying and just say that they ran out of time.
http://www.governing-principles.com
“Labour had put forward a massive legislative agenda knowing they would never pass it all. That way they could take the credit for trying and just say that they ran out of time.”
Yes, but this shows how out of touch Labour are with the electorate. Me and my friends would prefer less laws, not more.
Concerned Home Edder: In today’s debate on strengthening the Lords, Baroness Shephard made a similiar point about the need for fewer laws.
Hurrah for Baroness Shephard! I like her already.
Concerned Home Edder: You may be interested in this iniative by Mr Douglas Carswell: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Great_Repeal_Bill
I wonder if anyone can guess which was my contribution? Note that the reasoning appears to have been ‘modified’ slightly.
You will also be heartened to know that on his blog today (http://www.talkcarswell.com/show.aspx?id=1311) he has stated that supports peoples’ right to educate their own children without excessive interference.
CK: Will we be able to get a rebate from the Commons if these statutes go? I think the blogs share should go to providing LN with a moat around his coat of arms palisade.
I’m more cynical. I think they put forward all those Bills in the hope that come the wash-up, they’ll be able to force a lot of it through without proper scrutiny.
Thanks Chris K. I think I’ve heard of this before, but it makes interesting reading. I will have a proper look through later. Has anyone out there read “The Plan” by Daniel Hannan etc? I am interested in what they think needs to happen, but don’t have the money to buy it. Will check out my library perhaps…
I did see Douglas Carswell’s blog post on Home Education. It’s very worrying that he reports that LA’s want control over every aspect of people’s life. But not surprising from what I’ve heard from some Home Educators in different parts of the country.
Perhaps what we need is either a limit on the number of laws allowed (with restrictions on the definition of a law) or put an expiry automatic expiry on each Act such that it has to be explicitly renewed or superseded or it will lapseThat would mean that after a while we’ll reach equilibrium because Parliament will be busy renewing older laws and only find time for a new one by letting some of the old ones expire.
All wash-up legislation should have an expiry on it – to be confirmed by making it a proper Bill in the next Parliament within two years. This shouldn’t be too hard, given that what gets through should be acceptable to all the major parties otherwise they wouldn’t have agreed to it. If it doesn’t get pursued then it lapses on the second birthday of the Parliament.
Dave H: The idea of wash-up expiry dates is inspired. I think you’ve just announced a new must-have reform.
http://www.governing-principles.com
Yes! Yes! But the HoL does not have any power it is a consensual appointed bureaucracy.
Well sun-set clauses, as they are known, are usually agreed by the government over their dead body, seemingly on principle rather than the issue at hand.
Of course the government could see advantages in creating an artificial (or avoidable) backlog as it provides an excuse for rushing legislation onto the statue book without real scrutiny.
This an inspired Malarquie, a Nono! inspired by whom I am not going to say!
What a trivial Bill to worry about!
Civil service four principles!
Repeat after me!
The Spin cycle has come to an end; the next Wash on my machine will start in an orderly fashion! there is nothing wrong with it!
The Wash on my machine comes before the spin cycle not after it!
What we have got on this thread, is an attempt to introduce a completely different gadget in to the kitchen, which is NO GOOD, which spins first and washes afterwards!
The machine prototype is rubbish and should be consigned to the scrap heap!
LN: “the earliest the Bill could receive a Second Reading is in the week commencing 15 March.” BEWARE the ides of March. Is it time for the Parliament act?