/* My bits are protected, are yours?*/ poons: Civil Contingencies Bill
Support the Open Rights Group unsubscribe from human rights abuse in the war on terror
George W. Bush is coming to the UK... and we'll be waiting for him.
16 October, 2004
  Civil Contingencies Bill
Emphasis added by poons.

I was made aware of Clause 21 (3) (j) today by a letter (see next post) in the Worcester Evening News.

Namely :-
"Emergency regulations may make provision of any kind that could be made by Act of Parliament or by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, in particular, regulations may..."

The Joint Committee was extremely concerned about this provision. Indeed so concerned were they that they listed twenty-two fundamental constitutional laws which should not, under any circumstances, be amended or removed (eg: the Magna Carta 1297 and the Bill of Rights 1688). Their report commented that this clause as set out in 21.3.j:

"allows regulations to disapply any Act of Parliament. In the wrong hands, this could be used to remove all past legislation which makes up the statutory patchwork of the British Constitution".

The government's response was to reject the need for a list of constitutional laws that should be protected from amendment or revocation under this Bill. Their rejection simply relies on a convoluted argument from Parliamentary Counsel namely that:

"each proposed exercise of such a power must be assessed by reference to whether or not it is within the class of action that Parliament must have contemplated when conferring the power"

The Parliamentary Counsel goes on to advise that "in the unlikely event of needing to use this power Parliament will not permit interference either with a general presumption or with a "constitutional" enactment". This leads the government to conclude:

"we cannot presently envisage circumstances in which this power would lawfully enable us to make a substantial amendment to a constitutional enactment".

The Joint Committee argued that if the government wished to even have the possibility of such a sweeping power then it should be subject to separate legislation. The government refusal to remove this clause leaves a hostage to fortune. As the Joint Committee observed:

"In the wrong hands, it could be used to undermine or even remove legislation underpinning the British Constitution and infringe human rights"

This is the most dangerous sweeping power ever contemplated in the entire history of democracy in the United Kingdom. The power would be used by a Secretary of State (probably the Home Secretary) and would not require any consultation with the Monarch or the Privy Council.

It would allow any Government to dismantle ALL PREVIOUS ACTS OF PARLIAMENT should they feel the need. This is equivalent of the US patriot acts ability to suspend the Constitution.

It must not be allowed to happen.
Comments: Post a comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

getting a bit more serious

Contact me

June 2004 / July 2004 / August 2004 / September 2004 / October 2004 / November 2004 / December 2004 / January 2005 / February 2005 / March 2005 / April 2005 / May 2005 / June 2005 / July 2005 / August 2005 / September 2005 / October 2005 / November 2005 / December 2005 / February 2006 / April 2006 / May 2006 / June 2006 / July 2006 / August 2006 / September 2006 / October 2006 / November 2006 / December 2006 / January 2007 / February 2007 / March 2007 / April 2007 / May 2007 / June 2007 / July 2007 / August 2007 / September 2007 / October 2007 / November 2007 / December 2007 / January 2008 / February 2008 / March 2008 / April 2008 / May 2008 / June 2008 / July 2008 / August 2008 / September 2008 / October 2008 / November 2008 / December 2008 / January 2009 / February 2009 / April 2009 / May 2009 /


Powered by Blogger

Other Sites

Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 England & Wales License.