Skip to main content

Britain's deregulation


Ken Clarke - author of the Deregulation Bill

The Government has released the text of the Deregulation Bill, which seeks to simplify regulation across a wide range of industries and professions – everything from driving instructors to sellers of knitting yarn to insolvency practitioners.  Hidden away at section 51 of the Bill is a provision allowing a Minister of the Crown to order that “legislation shall cease to apply if the Minister considers that it is no longer of practical use.”

I suspect that this is probably the most significant power a Minister has ever sought to take for himself in British history.

Currently, if the Government wish to dis-apply a piece of legislation they must pass an Act of Parliament that abolishes the previous law.  This is because Parliament is the supreme law maker so if Parliament makes a law then only Parliament can unmake that law.

As the anti-Europe brigade in the Conservative party regularly reminds us their problem with Europe is that it undermines the supremacy of Parliament, which they say is of utmost importance to our democracy.  So it is surprising that the same Tory party now seeks to undermine the supremacy of Parliament by allowing a Minister to override Parliament and dis-apply a piece of primary legislation.

I’m sure it would never be used say to benefit political donors of course.

A few years ago the Government sought to increase the time a terror suspect could be held by police before charge from 14-days to 90-days.  There was outcry and Parliament defeated that attempt.  Had clause 51 of the Deregulation Bill been in force at the time a Minister of the Crown could have chosen to unilaterally dis-apply the parts of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 that deal with the time a suspect can be held leaving a situation where there is no time-limit at all!  Had they not been totally crazy they could have then amended the Police Codes of Conduct, which is already within the Minister’s power, to impose their 90-day limit, all against the will of the supreme law maker that is Parliament.

I grant you that this sounds far-fetched but civilised nations turned into barbaric dictatorships within living memory!  While laws alone won’t stop an armed group taking power and replacing those laws; a strong set of laws can help people who oppose the barbaric regimes coming to power in the first place.  I can’t help thinking that had ordinary Germans paid more attention to the plans of Hitler before he took complete control of Germany then his rise could have been averted.

Leaving that aside, what’s the next logical step once this law is passed?  After a couple of years why would the Government of the day not suggest that since Ministers can be trusted to dis-apply laws then why not let them apply new laws?  Obviously, they’d only be allowed to do it when necessary and they’d have to tell Parliament about it before making the law and Parliament could vote against it… if they notice it… assuming there’s Parliamentary time for debate before the time-limit for objection expires – that’s okay isn’t it?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…