Comments on: The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act – discussed on Law in Action, Radio 4 http://www.murky.org/blg/the-legislative-and-regulatory-reform-act-discussed-on-law-in-action-radio-4/ Tending to Geekiness Mon, 15 Mar 2010 05:45:52 -0600 hourly 1 By: Campaign Against the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill http://www.murky.org/blg/the-legislative-and-regulatory-reform-act-discussed-on-law-in-action-radio-4/#comment-583 Campaign Against the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill Sun, 26 Mar 2006 16:10:27 +0000 http://www.murky.org/blg/?p=938#comment-583 <strong>Law in Action on Radio 4</strong> Murk has a transcript of a discussion with Professor John Spencer QC (who has spoken out against the bill) about the bill, it Law in Action on Radio 4

Murk has a transcript of a discussion with Professor John Spencer QC (who has spoken out against the bill) about the bill, it

]]> By: Murky http://www.murky.org/blg/the-legislative-and-regulatory-reform-act-discussed-on-law-in-action-radio-4/#comment-582 Murky Thu, 23 Mar 2006 04:18:14 +0000 http://www.murky.org/blg/?p=938#comment-582 As the QC says, the difference is that the bill provides for orders rather than acts. Orders are treated with much less scrutiny than acts. So whilst parliament could block something, it increases the chances dramatically of things going through 'on the nod'. 'JOHN SPENCER QC: Without bringing them before parliament in a bill which would then have to be voted through as an act. They'd have to proceed by way of an order, and there isn't the possibility for debate and amendment, of course, when you proceed by order rather than by an act of parliament.' I'm rather inclined to bow to the QC on things like that As the QC says, the difference is that the bill provides for orders rather than acts. Orders are treated with much less scrutiny than acts. So whilst parliament could block something, it increases the chances dramatically of things going through ‘on the nod’.

‘JOHN SPENCER QC: Without bringing them before parliament in a bill which would then have to be voted through as an act. They’d have to proceed by way of an order, and there isn’t the possibility for debate and amendment, of course, when you proceed by order rather than by an act of parliament.’

I’m rather inclined to bow to the QC on things like that

]]> By: Nik http://www.murky.org/blg/the-legislative-and-regulatory-reform-act-discussed-on-law-in-action-radio-4/#comment-581 Nik Thu, 23 Mar 2006 03:39:49 +0000 http://www.murky.org/blg/?p=938#comment-581 I’ve been reading the Bill (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/111/06111.1-4.html#j001) and I’m wondering whether I’ve misread something. Section 4 says: --- (1) Provision under section 2(1) may not confer a function of legislating on a Minister of the Crown (alone or otherwise) unless the conditions in subsections (2) and (3) are satisfied. […] (3) The condition in this subsection is that such a statutory instrument— (a) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; or (b) is not to be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. --- This seems to be saying that either a) Parliament can annul any legislation brought in this way b) Parliament gets to review and approve legislation before it’s brought in this way With that safeguard in place, does this Bill pose that big a threat? Or have I missed something? [ Asked same question at <a href="http://bill111.wordpress.com/2006/03/20/join-the-campaign/#comments" rel="nofollow">http://bill111.wordpress.com/2006/03/20/join-the-campaign/#comments</a> ] I’ve been reading the Bill (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/111/06111.1-4.html#j001) and I’m wondering whether I’ve misread something.

Section 4 says:

—
(1) Provision under section 2(1) may not confer a function of legislating on a Minister of the Crown (alone or otherwise) unless the conditions in subsections (2) and (3) are satisfied.

[…]

(3) The condition in this subsection is that such a statutory instrument—

(a) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; or

(b) is not to be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

—

This seems to be saying that either

a) Parliament can annul any legislation brought in this way
b) Parliament gets to review and approve legislation before it’s brought in this way

With that safeguard in place, does this Bill pose that big a threat? Or have I missed something?

[ Asked same question at http://bill111.wordpress.com/2006/03/20/join-the-campaign/#comments ]

]]> By: Jax http://www.murky.org/blg/the-legislative-and-regulatory-reform-act-discussed-on-law-in-action-radio-4/#comment-580 Jax Thu, 23 Mar 2006 03:38:36 +0000 http://www.murky.org/blg/?p=938#comment-580 <a href="http://www.jimmurphymp.com/ViewPage.cfm?Page=8412" rel="nofollow">Jim Murphy's contact details</a> hth. Jim Murphy’s contact details

hth.

]]>