Regulatory Reform Act 2001
From
Written by Unity
A looking at some of the acts of parliament the Government have refused exemptions from the provisions, makes frightening reading, and begs the question what exactly are Tony Blair’s intentions.
Looking at just some of these Acts, one has to wonder quite justification the government can have not making them of part one of this bill, which affords Ministers unprecedented powers to make, amend and repeal legislation with the minimum of Parliamentary scrutiny.
Amongst the various matters that the government are currently unwilling to exempt from this bill are:
Every single protection against the arbitrary and unlawful detention of citizens by the state (Habeas Corpus Acts, Bail Act, Human Rights Act);
The independence of the Scottish judiciary and legal system (Act of Union);
The Monarchy (Act of Settlement, Succession to the Crown Act, Claim of Right);
Parliamentary democracy (Representation of the People Acts, House of Lords Act. Parliamentary Constituencies Act, Ministers of the Crown Act, Parliament Acts);
Devolved government in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (Scotland Act, Government of Wales Acts, Government of Ireland Act);
The independence of Canada, Australia and New Zealand – no seriously, this is in the Statute of Westminster – plus about a dozen other ‘Commonwealth Realms’, including Jamaica, the Bahamas and Papua New Guinea.
And that’s just a few of highlights – without even getting in Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights.
In case you’ve missed the start of this whole debate, this is how the purpose of the bill was described by Cabinet Officer Minister, Jim Murphy, at the start of its committee stage:
“The Bill builds on the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. It aims to deliver on the Government’s agenda of better regulation. As part of that, however, we need to ensure through our deliberations in these eight sittings that there is a correct level of effective parliamentary scrutiny. Ultimately, however, the Bill is intended to maintain the
So why does a bill that is supposedly designed to “maintain the UK’s competitiveness, free up public sector workers and others from bureaucracy, and remove unnecessary regulation” need to include the power to amend core constitutional legislation?
Does the government think that
Is Habeas Corpus an ‘unnecessary regulation’?
a correct level of effective parliamentary scrutiny. Would that be code for less?
Technorati Tags: Tony Blair, repeal legislation, arbitrary and unlawful detention of citizens,
I may be a little thick here but why are we just allowing such things to go unchallenged, day after day on various blogs i read things that make my blood boil yet nobody is doing anything about it, like government we’ve become a talking shop where nothing ever changes, Have we become so brainwashed by cultural marxism that we now do and say only what is allowed? i find it very scary that we seem to accept whatever the politicians decide on our behalf, it’s very clear we now have a one party system and to my mind Westminster needs slimming down why pay for over 600 clones when half that would be too many to act out eu laws, By doing nothing we encourage this rabble of hated scum i’m of the mind we get what we deserve or what we fight for! The dictators that now rule this once democracy should be run out of office when it ceases to be a democray then all is fair in love and war, it is obvious also that Marxism rules here and for sure i never wanted nore voted in any type of communist regime. i’m only a female she says tongue in cheek and i know many others in the same frame of mind, are the men actually waiting for the women to start up?