A Power too far for Government

RRO Debates, Standing Committee A.

(Morning) Session 28.2.2006 and Standing Committee A (Afternoon).

Some Comments;

"the power enables a Minister to implement a set of recommendations, in full or in part, and for the provision made by the order to depart from the recommendations."

The hon. Gentleman makes the same point as we do. It is a power too far for the Government.



"If this is allowed does this mean we become a republic, via the back door? I do not think that this Government should be allowed to do this without public debate. This government has said in their speeches that they will not use these powers, if that is so why put them in? Does this sound a bit like Germany in the 1930's?"


"For nearly nine years New Labour has behaved with autocratic arrogance, treated Parliament with contempt, politicised the civil service and emasculated the Second Chamber.

It chills the blood that this legislation gives them power to change laws at the stroke of a pen.

The Commons must have an absolute right of veto over any ministerial diktat—and that should be explicit in the Bill."


My suspicions—and, I suspect, those of many members of the Committee—have been raised rather than allayed by the Minister's response. At the end of his comments, when he talked about the Law Commission justification for making such changes, he used the expression "uncontroversial Law Commission proposals", yet he has refused to allow the word "uncontroversial" or "non-controversial" to be put in the Bill. He uses expressions from the Law Commission that incorporate that phraseology, yet he wants to go much wider. Why does he want to go much wider? Why will he not put "non-controversial" or "uncontroversial" in the Bill?


Not that long ago I was chairing a Statutory Instrument Committee where I observed, from my neutral position in the Chair, a Minister trying to defend a situation where he or his predecessor had given an undertaking in relation to an agreement that was reached on a criminal justice Bill relating to the issue of whether jury trials could be abolished in fraud cases. My recollection is that as part of the agreement that was reached to deal with Lords amendments, the Government gave an undertaking not to bring forward a statutory instrument relating to that without full consultation. In the end the Minister had to agree that there had not been that full consultation.

That recent example illustrates the weakness of general undertakings to consult about a matter. To remove the safeguards in the present harbour revision orders legislation by Government fiat would be a regressive rather than a progressive move. Even where the Minister says that he has it in mind to change the Harbours Act 1964, that will be to the detriment of natural justice. The same is true, for all I know, with the Covent Garden Market Act 1961.

Interestingly, the individual private people who are affected by this will not be able to initiate the process; it will have to be done by the Government. At the moment private interests come forward, engage in consultation, employ parliamentary counsel and get their tackle in order before they bring forward their Bill. They can do that irrespective of the views of the Government. That is their right of access to Parliament. But under the provisions of this Bill, the Government are saying, "You can only use these accelerated procedures if we endorse it." What sort of justice and equity is that?

Many Thanks to Anne Palmer for her research.

Hostage to Fortune

There are of course many old laws still in place in the United Kingdom. Some years ago, Lord Harris of High Cross formed what he called the ‘Repeal Group’ in the attempt to get them wiped off the statute book. But most people, especially busy parliamentary business managers, could not see the point of repealing laws that nobody took a blind bit of notice of anyway.

Harris was right. If laws are on the statute book, it is a hostage to fortune that some bloody-minded politician will resurrect and use them, even though they are no longer relevant to today’s circumstances…………. But you only need to look at how modern laws are stretched by the police and others – holding a heckler at the Labour Party conference and a cyclist in Dundee under anti-terrorist laws, or arresting a women harmlessly reading out the names of war dead by the Cenotaph in London’s Whitehall.

My concern that bad laws can come back to bite us unless ruthlessly culled is made all the more poignant by the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill now going through the House of Commons. It empowers ministers to amend or repeal any law, supposedly in order to adjust minor administrative inconveniences. The trouble is that a tyrannical government could use the measure to do what it liked, without the minor administrative inconvenience of Parliament. Indeed, when you look at this idea, you might well conclude that such tyranny has already arrived.

Consumer rights day

I did not know that there was such a thing as “consumer rights’ day”

The Brussels Journal

Chresten Anderson

Today the Austrian EU Presidency is organising the 8th European Consumer Day, in cooperation with the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC). The date marks US President John F. Kennedy’s declaration to the US Congress on 15 March 1962, when he spoke in support of consumers and spelled out four fundamental consumer rights (the right to safety; the right to be informed; the right to choose; the right to be heard).

In 1985 the United Nations decided that each year 15 March would be a special consumer rights’ day across the world. In 1999 the European Consumer Day (ECD) was launched at the EESC’s initiative, with the aim of making the public more aware of EU consumer policy and informing people of the ongoing work in this area.

In his 1962 speech Kennedy defined the four fundamental rights of consumers.

1. The right to safety: the right to be protected against products, production processes and services that are hazardous to health or life.

2. The right to be informed: the right to be given the facts and information you need to make your own choices.

3. The right to choose: the right to be able to choose from a range of products and services offered at competitive prices. As a consumer, you have the right to expect satisfactory quality.

4. The right to be heard: the right to have your interests as a consumer represented in government policy.

All of those rights are sensible, and luckily a free and functioning market process can ensure them all.

Unfortunately, however, governments have interfered, restricting consumers’ rights:



In order to guarantee European consumers their fundamental rights it is necessary that they once again become free to make their own choices – and not have Brussels bureaucrats make the choices for them.

BBC Poll Tax

Sir - The Government’s proposals for the future of the BBC seem anachronistic (News, March 15).

There are now numerous ways in which information and entertainment of the type the BBC provides can be obtained: terrestrial broadcast, satellite transmission, internet and mobile phone transmission. There are also many providers of services through these channels. In the coming years more will emerge.

To expect the BBC to be able to exist in its present form for another 10 years is unrealistic. Soon the huge range of material available from other sources will make the licence fee uncollectable. People will refuse to pay a poll tax like this and the methods of scrutiny necessary to enforce it will become intolerable.

In future the BBC should be funded by voluntary donations. The resulting organisation would be very different from the one it is today. But if it really is as popular as it claims to be, such finance should make it viable and able to provide a worthwhile and valued service.

Christopher Rose, Grangetown, Sunderland