Leg & Reg - Amednments Published
Briefings/Issues - Leg/Reg Reform Bill
Written by Unity   
Thursday, 04 May 2006

I had inteded to let thing lie fallow here for a few more days, until the new improve Liberty Central was ready to go, but I cannot pass up on the news that the Cabinet Office has, today, published a set of amendments to the dreaded Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.

Having only just received this information - full details from the Cabinet Office here -  I've yet to find time to fully digest the extent of the changes and, in particular, the extent to which this constituents an improvement in the Bill itself. At first sight a number of the Government's revision, especially the revised section 1 of the Bill, look set to improve matters considerably in being specific as to the precise purpose of orders made under that section and the constraints and limitations under which they can be made, which no require that such orders may only remove one or more of the following 'burdens':

(a) a financial cost;
(b) an administrative inconvenience;
(c) an obstacle to efficiency, productivity or profitability; or
(d) a sanction, criminal or otherwise, for doing or not doing anything in the course of any activity.

Against this, section 6 of the Bill, which confers power, by order, to create new minor criminal offences with sentences of less than two years imprisonment appears to have survived largely intact and with only minor textual amendments being put forward.

We continue to have serious reservations about this section of the Bill both on principle - put simply we do not believe that a Government should be hand the power to introduce new imprisonable offences into criminal law without full Parliamentary scrutiny and primary legislation - and also about the intent that lies behind this section.

This Government has show a tendancy, elsewhere, to use the criminal law as back-up to what amounts to little more than edicts from officialdom - the Identity Cards Act is littered with examples where simply not giving information to a government functionary on demand can leave you with a criminal record and a hefty fine. The same is true when it comes to Council Tax valuations, where its now a criminal offence to refuse to admit a valuation officer to your home if they turn up on your doorstep.

The concern here should be obvious - whatever other changes may arise out these amendments, the Government is still trying to hand itself the near unrestrained power to criminalise citizens simply for refusing to play ball with the demands of the State with the minimum of Parliamentary scrutiny. The potential exists, through this Bill, for the proliferation of State intrusion in the private lives of citizens, backed up by criminal sanctions, and all slipped in through the back door at the stroke of a Ministerial pen and with minimum of attention - in fact one half suspects this is precisely why the Government is seeking to reserve such powers to itself.

We'll need more time to work through the detail of these amendments but, at first glance, it seems that there are still major concerns about the scope of the Bill and the extent to which it confers new powers on Government with only limited scope for proper scrutiny, so we'll reserve our full judgement for the moment until we've had time to mull things over properly.

 
Moving very soon
News - Project News
Written by Unity   
Tuesday, 18 April 2006

Just a quick note to explain that things have been very quiet on the posting front for a very good reason - I'm currently gearing up for a server move, which will provide far more capacity for this and a few other sites I'm currently hosting.

Things should be sorted by the weekend. 

 
Briefings/Issues - Care of Older Persons Bill
Written by Unity   
Monday, 27 March 2006

Private Members bills are the Cinderellas of the legislative process – they get to go to the ball but very often have to leave early and unfulfilled. Still, every so often one comes across a bill that seems well worth the Parliamentary time afforded to it, and the Care of Older and Incapacitated People (Human Rights) Bill, introduced by Lib Dem MP, Paul Burstow, looks to be just such a bill.

For those unfamiliar with the conventions of Parliament, each Parliamentary session a ballot of backbench MPs is held with the first 20 MPs drawn being permitted to introduce a bill for consideration by Parliament – there are other methods by which backbench MPs may introduce new legislation (10 minute rule bills, Ordinary Presentation Bills and, occasionally, handout or ‘Whips’ bills given by the government to its own backbenchers) but other than the ‘Whips’ bills, which may include legislation that the government of the day supports but cannot timetable in its main programme – or maybe does not want to lead on – it is rare that any of these other types of private bill go on to become law.

Ballot bills, as they are called, tend to be serious attempts to create new, and sometime controversial, legislation, usually in a clearly defined field/area in which an MP takes a particular interest; for example, we recently highlighted the presence of the Prohibition of Abortion (England and Wales) bill on the Parliamentary schedule – a bill to which we object, by the way. Others, particularly 10 minute rule bills, tend to put forward simply to raise the profile of a particular issue or to ‘test the water’ in advance of, hopefully, introducing a more serious bill via the ballot in a future session, should the MPs name come up.

Read more...
 
March For Free Expression hits trouble
News - Opinion/Editorial
Written by Unity   
Friday, 24 March 2006

The organisers of the upcoming March for Free Expression have run into a few difficulties after taking the brave decision to request that supporters of the march not bring placards or wear t-shirts showing the now infamous 'Mohammed Cartoons'.

In a lengthy statement on the organiser's blog, 'Voltaire' goes to some considerable lengths to explain the reasoning behind their decision

In practice, Muslims who wholeheartedly endorse our statement of principle, as quoted below by Peter Tatchell in his superb essay, who abhor the threats made against Danish cartoonists and believe people should have the right to publish things they themselves find offensive or abhorrent would be UNABLE to come to our rally on Saturday, because to be surrounded by these cartoons, now, in the present context when the BNP are using them as a rallying point, would be intolerable.

So I now appeal to people not to bring the cartoons on T-shirts or placards. 

In addition, the organisers of the march have also withdrawn their endorsement from the Copenhagen rally after discovering that the Danish organisers are members of an organisation that advocates the mass deportation of Muslims from Europe.

Last Updated ( Friday, 24 March 2006 )
Read more...
 
'Hacking tools' law goes from bad to worse