On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 02:14:24 +0000 (UTC), Dave
wrote:
Tony Bryer wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 00:22:53 +0000 (UTC) Dave wrote :
If we live in what we used know as a democracy, how come TFB who
presides at the odpm (I can't possibly capitalise that, as I do not
think it should exist in the first place) can issue a decree that has
not been discussed in parliament and voted on, on a free basis, ie
the whips are strapped down and blindfolded?
Because the underlying Act - and there are probably thousands like it -
says that the Minister is empowered to do so.
At this point, I must add that I have driven from Preston to Portsmouth
and back today, to bring the g children here, so sorry for any mental
aberations.
Was this as a result of the driving or the impact of the kids? :-)
Why should any office of an elected body have the ability to define a
new law, without a vote by our elected MPs?
In a democracy, this law should be decided by the elected body that we
call a government.
In the extreme case, if every new measure had to be debated in
Parliament in detail, the legislative programme would never be
completed in the time available.
Of course if they didn't waste time on things that have no business
having the amount of time spent on them such as fox hunting, and
didn't seek to introduce so much new regulation in the first place it
would help.
Therefore they have enabling legislation which allows a certain level
of addition and change to go through with little or no parliamentary
time.
While this was going through the consultations and RIA and eventually
legislative stages, I like a number of people, wrote to the government
department concerned, and to my MP. It was very obvious early on
that this was being driven by the commercial interests of the trade
organisations, with the ODPM being a willing player in anything that
would increase regulation.
They didn't want to take heed of stats from RoSPA and others pointing
out that accidents and deaths from fixed wiring are negligible, that
it implemented the legislation was likely to have the opposite effect
or be ignored.
I have a letter, in response to one to him from my MP, from the junior
minister (Raynsford), restating almost verbatim, the party line from
the government department. It was pretty clear that he didn't
really know what the whole thing was about so I doubt had spect any
time on it.
So the reality is that this stuff goes through under pressure of
commercial and interest group lobbying and a bloated civil service.
Democracy doesn't enter into it.
The effect is that we move inexorably towards the modus operandi of
the latin language countries where there is plenty of legislation, but
which is mainly ignored unless something bad happens.
That's fine as long as we all understand that that's the rules of the
game - sort of like traffic lights in Milan being an indication of
policy more than anything else.
"The Building Act 1984 is the enabling Act under which the Building
Regulations are made and empowers the Secretary of State to make
regulations for the purpose of
* Securing the health, safety, welfare and convenience of persons in or
about buildings and of others who may be affected by buildings or
matters connected with buildings;
* Furthering the conservation of fuel and power;
* Preventing waste, undue consumption, misuse or contamination of
water"
http://www.charnwood.gov.uk/environm...onsandotherleg
is.html
IIRC such regulations have to be laid before Parliament before coming
into effect, thus giving MP's a theoretical right to object but if one
does the reply is probably that all interested parties have been
consulted and the responses to the consultation have been taken into
account.
--
..andy