Legislative and Regulatory Reform.
I can't think there's anyone who might read this who won't already have seen the basic links, so I'm not going to repeat 'em. I Wrote to my MP and found that having read others' letters was useful, so here's mine in case anyone else can use or avoid any points or structure.
Dear Peter Soulsby,
I am writing to register my concern at the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill which has recently passed its second reading and is now in Committee.
Having read the legislation, it seems to me that it allows far too much power to be placed in the hands of Ministers and removes too much from the overview of Parliament. Although there are clauses requiring proportionality, maintaining the public interest and preventing the removal of "necessary protection", the method by which the transgression of these provisions is determined and checked is lacking. Parliament will be unable to debate the terms of any Order, since only a vote in the Commons is required. The amending Lords will be unable to scrutinse the changes to legislation that this Act would permit. As such, the terms of any Order would be set potentially by one person and we know that there are many ways of getting measures past a vote unheralded. This is unacceptable and an abrogation of Parliament's responsibility to the Crown and People.
I understand that our systems carry a great burden of redundant and out of date legislation on all manner of subjects and that this Act would be a very useful tool in cutting through this arcane and unhelpful red tape. I am uncomfortable, however, with the potential for unfortunate Orders to be enacted with the best intentions and for wicked measures to be taken with the worst, should unscrupulous people gain Ministerial authority. Tellingly, the Act makes no exemption for itself, so it is conceivable that its internal checks could themselves be removed by Order. Legislation with the potential to be reciprocal is dangerous and should be avoided; the Parliament Act has already been used to reinforce itself and this legislation would permit similar removal of influence from the Commons.
I would greatly appreciate it if you could raise these concerns during the course of the Bill's close scrutiny. Britain does not need an Enabling Act (wikipedia may not be the most accurate of sources but this seems credible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act#Passing_of_the_Enabling_Act )
Yours sincerely,
Russell Sakne
Dear Peter Soulsby,
I am writing to register my concern at the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill which has recently passed its second reading and is now in Committee.
Having read the legislation, it seems to me that it allows far too much power to be placed in the hands of Ministers and removes too much from the overview of Parliament. Although there are clauses requiring proportionality, maintaining the public interest and preventing the removal of "necessary protection", the method by which the transgression of these provisions is determined and checked is lacking. Parliament will be unable to debate the terms of any Order, since only a vote in the Commons is required. The amending Lords will be unable to scrutinse the changes to legislation that this Act would permit. As such, the terms of any Order would be set potentially by one person and we know that there are many ways of getting measures past a vote unheralded. This is unacceptable and an abrogation of Parliament's responsibility to the Crown and People.
I understand that our systems carry a great burden of redundant and out of date legislation on all manner of subjects and that this Act would be a very useful tool in cutting through this arcane and unhelpful red tape. I am uncomfortable, however, with the potential for unfortunate Orders to be enacted with the best intentions and for wicked measures to be taken with the worst, should unscrupulous people gain Ministerial authority. Tellingly, the Act makes no exemption for itself, so it is conceivable that its internal checks could themselves be removed by Order. Legislation with the potential to be reciprocal is dangerous and should be avoided; the Parliament Act has already been used to reinforce itself and this legislation would permit similar removal of influence from the Commons.
I would greatly appreciate it if you could raise these concerns during the course of the Bill's close scrutiny. Britain does not need an Enabling Act (wikipedia may not be the most accurate of sources but this seems credible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act#Passing_of_the_Enabling_Act )
Yours sincerely,
Russell Sakne