Yesterday the House spent 8 hours debating the Public Bodies (Reform) Bill. This is a Bill that, in short, gives Ministers the power to abolish, merge and reform quangos (quasi-autonomous non-departmental organisations) without much further consultation, simply by statutory instrument. The Bill lists 192 of those organisations that we love to hate (the Charity Commission, the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, OFCOM, Office of Fair Trading – I could go on but it’s invidious) and provides for powers to change them without going back to Parliament for debate, even where those organisations were established by primary legislation. This power was described as a constitutional outrage by the parliamentary Constitution Committee. Most of the debate last night concerned this quite shocking attempt to give Ministers power to do away with laws passed by Parliament, without submitting the quangos that might be abolished to the same careful scrutiny that they had when they were set up by law. The House declared several times during the debate that the Bill would deprive it of the function at which it excels, namely, the careful scrutiny of legislative proposals, especially when they are hurried through the Commons. Nevertheless, at 11.30pm the vote was 188-151 in favour of allowing the Bill to proceed in the normal fashion through a Committee of the Whole House. The alternative, which I preferred, was for it to be remitted to a Select Committee, where it would get even more detailed examination. So the strength of the Coalition, at least in numbers, was proven. Note that there were 339 peers ready to vote at 11.30 pm, average age 69. I went out into the cold midnight air outside the House to make my way back to my rented room, having spoken at 10.17pm. I might have done a better job at 4pm. Most of the House seemed to think that it was high time to reform and reduce the numbers of quangos, but not in this way.
The scuttlebutt is that the government were whipping very hard so I’m surprised by the narrowness of the vote.
Excuse my ignorance my Lady.
“Nevertheless, at 11.30pm the vote was 188-151 in favour of allowing the Bill to proceed in the normal fashion through a Committee of the Whole House.”
I presume this means it wasn`t passed by any means but that it now goes through a normal process where the whole House, as Committee, sits in judgement ?
I shall be disappointed if this goes through and Ministers become Dictators. Of course then we will have the eternal game similar to that of departments, everytime a Government changes so will all else at great cost to the Nation.
On the subject of a late vote AGAIN on an extremely important issue, why, oh why is there no electronic ability to vote from home or elsewhere ? We know that sometimes other debates are deliberately lengthened to try to tire opponents into retiring early, why do we suffer these silly games. Presumably the Government in the forthcoming(?) referendum won`t settle for just those left to vote at 23.30 ?
I probably loathe as many Quango`s as any other but most I probably won`t have a clue on. I`d like to know how, and how much effort/work, any minister will put in to scrutinising each one before deciding no or yes. At the very least it deserves a cross party committee.
What appears to be being prescribed by the Bill is very similar to the “no jury” legislation. It`s undemocratic and to my mind unconstitutional.
Dear Baroness Deech,
I listened to many of the contributions and thought it was a really excellent debate. I only hope that some way can be found for Clause 11 and Schedule 7 to be removed from the Bill during its passage through your House.
Howridiculous.
BD: Parliament has worked to achieve a constitutional separation of powers without the ability in any way to enforce that separation legally through a constitutional court. It amounts to nothing more than a powder puff and glossy lipstick applied to make it all EU palatable.
What has been entirely forgotten is that the views of baron de Montesquieu which are pivotal to the changes that have taken place used Plato as his inspiration and the English Parliament as a model of power separation and all at a time when the constitution did not formally separate those powers.
European empires have come and gone as have their Monarchies whilst ours has changed not by violent revolution but by incremental change based upon precedent. What nobody seems to want to accept in Parliament is that there are intangible forces at work that create this stability and it leaves them insecure.
Again we see Parliament passing laws that are unenforceable either practically or by formal means. So what have the British people gained by all of this? The executive carries on as though the changes never took place; an implication that the consensual separation of judiciary from Parliament by the Law Lords, a time proven trust, can no longer be relied upon and the separation of Lord Chancellor from the executive can no longer be trusted either? The woolsack should be renamed the strawsack.
Where is the evidence for these constitutional changes that have taken place within the British framework of governance based upon the precedence of a dereliction of duty or trust? Our constitution is precedence and without precedential evidence the constitution ought not to change. You of course are going to put the case of what-if; the law has no use for what-ifs but the factual certainty of evidence.
If this executive abuses its power by what it has done then there will be change, perhaps the return of the Law Lords to Parliament along with a new constitutional court with the power to strike down legislation?
Ref: Political Views
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_de_Secondat,_baron_de_Montesquieu