Comments on "abolition of parliament"

[Hide] original entry

My MP wrote an article for the Times about the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. It sounds pretty horrifying:

The boring title of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill hides an astonishing proposal. It gives ministers power to alter any law passed by Parliament. The only limitations are that new crimes cannot be created if the penalty is greater than two years in prison and that it cannot increase taxation. But any other law can be changed, no matter how important. All ministers will have to do is propose an order, wait a few weeks and voila, the law is changed.

But then the article goes on:

For ministers the advantages are obvious: no more tedious debates in which they have to answer awkward questions. Instead of a full day's debate on the principle of the proposal, detailed line-by-line examination in committee, a second chance at a specific amendment in the Commons and a final debate and vote, ministers will have to face at most a short debate in a committee and a one-and-a-half hour debate on the floor. Frequently the Government will face less than that. No amendments will be allowed. The legislative process will be reduced to a game or take-it-or-leave-it.

(Added emphasis is mine in both cases.) The curious thing here is that the first paragraph seems to say that the Bill, if it became law, would allow ministers to create new legislation without ever needing to vote on it, whereas the second seems to say that there would be voting but it would be done more quickly and with fewer options. The difference between these possibilities is enormous; the first would indeed merit the nickname "Abolition of Parliament Bill" that's apparently been attached to this thing, whereas (in my opinion) the second obviously wouldn't.

Well, let's take a look at the Bill itself. (Full text is linked to above.) According to clause 13, there are three procedures called (in order of increasing stringency) "negative", "affirmative" and "super-affirmative". The minister gets to choose one; it is used unless either House of Parliament resolves within 21 days to require a more stringent one, or a committee charged with looking at the order asks for it.

The "negative resolution procedure" means that the change goes through unless either House of Parliament resolves within 40 days not to let it. The "affirmative resolution procedure" means that the change goes through if each House of Parliament resolves within 40 days to let it. The "super-affirmative resolution procedure" is much like the ARP except that it allows for longer consideration and for revision of the order if Parliament asks for it.

Unless I'm misunderstanding this pretty badly, this means that David Howarth's first paragraph quoted above is (while not actually untrue) deeply misleading; Parliament does still have the authority to stop legislative changes made in this way. For anyone who's thinking "Beware of the Leopard" at this point, I should mention that clause 12 requires that Parliament be informed.

The Bill may still be terrible; perhaps it will make it easier for the government to introduce nasty oppressive legislation; it may be stupid for entirely different reasons too; but it isn't quite the thing of infinite evil it's been portrayed as.