Bills 14-20/03/2008

This draft remained unfinished at the time I abandoned this project; I present it here for historical purposes.

Animals Act 1971 (Amendment) Bill
“A Bill to amend the Animals Act 1971 to limit strict liability for damage done by animals” (BD).
There are, for obvious reasons, laws covering liability for damage caused by dangerous animals eg snakes, dogs and alligators. The Animals Act 1971 is also, it seems, about non-dangerous animals, and, over time (again this is my interpretation of HA), a series of rulings have increased the area in which ’strict liability’ applies. This has resulted in an increase in insurance costs for those holding non-dangerous animals – from HA, equistrian centres and city farms. This Bill would limit the areas in which strict liability applies. It seems to enjoy quite a bit of cross-party support, although it enjoys quite a bit of opposition as well.
The Bill

Constitutional Renewal Bill

Main source here.

Jack Straw wants to “surrender significant executive powers to Parliament”. At present, the Government of the UK has a number of special powers, some of them exercised through the Royal Prerogative – certain things that the monarch is allowed to do, but will conventionally only do when asked to by the Government. Among these ‘executive powers’ of the Government are the power to dissolve Parliament and call a general election; the power to declare war on another country; and the power to sign treaties. The Brown Government has put out a Green Paper named “The Governance of Britain” that would change some of these things; from this was constructed a draft Constitutional Renewal Bill.

One. The Government has the power, through the Royal Prerogative, to declare war and ratify treaties. (Note, however, that the decleration of war on Iraq was made subject to a vote in Parliament, and the European Union (Amendment) Bill 2008 was also laid before Parliament [WIPs passim].) The Bill would give a statutory requirement for treaties to be laid before both Houses, and it would also include measures on giving Parliament more power in deciding the deployment of Armed Forces.

Two. The Attorney General supervises the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Serious Fraud Office, and other offices. This means that he is basically the head of Britain’s judicary.

This is all very well, but the Attorney General is also a Cabinet minister and the Government’s chief legal advisor. This means that when he does things like “halt a corruption inquiry into an arms deal between BAE and Saudi Arabia” in the name of the public interest when said probe could have damaged Britian’s lucrative interests in that country, people get suspicious. The Constitutional Renewal Bill would alter the role of the Attorney General to give Britain a more independent judicary.

Three. The Civil Service is responsible for drafting laws and other political jobs. It is not, the main source implies, a body with specific legal representation. The CRB would enshrine the core values of the Civil Service – “impartiality, integrity, honesty and objectivity“ – into law.

Four. The draft is frustratingly vague about this measure, to introduce Parliamentary scrutiny into the appointment of key public officials currently appointed by the Government.

Five. The monarch has something called the “Royal Prerogative of Mercy”, which essentially boils down the fact she can if she wishes pardon any criminal she likes. But, in the same way as she can if she likes dissolve Parliament and call in election, doing so by personal choice would violate convention and strain considerably political-royal relations. The prerogative is generally only exercised on ‘advice’ from the Government, but it has apparently been replaced by statute; thus the CRB would possibly remove this power.

Six. I don’t understand this one, so I’ll just quote it. “The Government is consulting on what its future role in judicial appointments should be, including considering a role for Parliament.”

Seven. Similar sentiments. “Government will focus on changes to bring appointment, operation and reporting of the Intelligence and Security Committee more in line with other select committees, while maintaining arrangements for dealing with highly classified information.”

Eight. Ah. Now this one is interesting.

Let me take you back to August 2005, whence our province had less of a plethora of local papers; the Metro, however, carried a few annoyed articles about the – yes, friends – Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Squirreled within it is a bit which starts like this:

132. Demonstrating without authorisation in designated area
(1) Any person who—
(a) organises a demonstration in a public place in the designated area, or
(b) takes part in a demonstration in a public place in the designated area, or
(c) carries on a demonstration by himself in a public place in the designated area,
is guilty of an offence if, when the demonstration starts, authorisation for the demonstration has not been given under section 134(2).

It then carries on in a similar vein. The upshot is that it is illegal to protest outside Parliament without notifying the police beforehand, who can impose strictures such as maximum noise levels, limits on placard size and location.

This, to give it context, was ostensibly designed to prevent “hindrance to any person wishing to enter or leave the Palace of Westminster”. In my biased and personal opinion, this section should have been called the “Shut Brian Haw Up, For God’s Sake, Man! Provisions 2005″. The CRB would repeal the appropriate section of SOCA.

Sorry everyone…

…there’s no excuse for the fact I haven’t done this for ages. I’m tempted to declare the last few weeks a write-off. But I feel I have to do it for you guys.

…

Wait a sec, there isn’t anyone reading, and when anyone trawls the archives, three totally untopical weeks missing won’t matter. OK then. I will copy over a post from elsewhere, though, about constitutional reform.

Notice

You might be expecting the publication of Bills 14-20/03/2008 at this point. Well, it’s Easter Sunday today, which means HB has not yet been published; hence my next post will be delayed until Tuesday at the earliest.

Bills 07-13/03/2008

I apologise for the fact I’m running a week behind at present; hopefully I’ll be able to use my day off tomorrow to catch up.

Private Equity (Transfer of Undertakings and Protection of Employment) Bill
“A Bill to extend the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 to the acquistion and disposal of substential shareholdings by private equity companies; and for connected purposes” (BD).
When the man moving the Bill says “I am certain that I know very little about [private equity takeovers]” (HA), you know that you’re in trouble. From what I can gather from the Hansard records, the Bill is designed to extend protection of workers and business (that’s what the TU(PE)R 2006 do) from applying only to normal takeovers to applying to “a transfer of equity—a transfer of shares that gives a controlling interest” (HA). Unsurprisingly, the CBI seem to be against this, from the words of Tony Lloyd (Labour, Central Manchester) (HA).
The Bill was introduced for its Second Reading on the 7th of March 2008; it was withdrawn (HB).

Energy Saving (Daylight) Bill
The child of Tim Yeo (Conservative, South Suffolk), this Bill would, from October 2009 to October 2012, place the United Kingdom (with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland having opt-outs) in Central European Time, GMT+1. This would ‘move’ one hour of daylight from morning to evening, or, as Mr. Yeo puts it, “move that daylight to the time of day when people are up and about rather than when they are asleep in bed” (HA). The Bill would, by his words, reduce accidents on the road (for which reason it is supported by the RoSPA), save energy, and generally be a Good Thing. There are, however, fairly obvious problems. The Bill would adversely affect the north of Britain, and the opt-out for Scotland would not be sufficent to protect the north-west of England, according to Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley) (HA). The Bill would also adversely affect those who worked early in the mornings, such as farmers and postal workers, incurring the opposition of the Communication Workers’ Union – Mr, Yeo’s response was ” I wish my post arrived during the hours of darkness” (HA).
The Bill underwent its Second Reading with little incident; due to time constraints, the debate was adjourned to the 14th of March 2008 (HA).

Copyright in Sound Recordings and Performers’ Rights (Term Extension) Bill
We’ve seen this mouthful before. Usually then I’d say something interesting (cough cough) about the debate that happened, but, as the debate consisted of the single word “Object” (HA), I can’t.
The Second Reading debate on this Bill was postponed to the 14th of March 2008 (HA).

There was also a Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill read for the first time on the 10th of March 2008 and the second and third time on the 11th of March before being sent to the Lords, but from what I can gather (BD) there’s no debate or indeed voting involved, so I won’t cover the niceties.

Environmental Protection Act 1990 (Amendment) Bill
“A Bill to amend Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the duties, powers and functions of waste regulation authorities concerning the unauthorised deposit of controlled waste on land; and for connected purposes” (BD).
This, it seems, is a Bill about fly-tipping. It “has the support of the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union” (HA), and is fairly simple: illegally dumped rubbish on public land (ie roads) is the responsibility of the Environment Agency to remove, whereas that illegally dumped on private land is the responsibility of the landowner, and it is a criminal offence for them not to remove it, which is a costly process. The Bill would extend the responsibility of the Environment Agency to those instances where controlled waste is dumped on private land without the landowner’s consent. It would also create a responsibilty (for councils, I think) to investigate instances of fly-tipping and, where possible, bring a prosecution.
The Bill was read for a first time on the 11th of March 2008 and the Second Reading was scheduled for the 25th of April 2008.

European Union (Amendment) Bill
Oh dear. David Miliband (Labour, South Shields), as ever, led the charge for the Bill, opposed, as ever, by Hague (Conservative, Richmond), Cash (Conservative, Stone) and Heathcoat-Amory (Conserative, Wells) (the “unconvincing accent” so tactfully referred to by Ann Apolis earlier). The arguements will be familiar by now – the Conservatives arguing that the constitutional concept was still as present as ever and that this was another slab on the crazy paving path to a European superstate, Labour arguing that the Conservatives were again displaying knee-jerk Euroscepticism that was out-of-touch with people and that the Treaty was good for Europe and the UK, and the Liberal Democrats not arguing at all. The debate was only brightened up by damning references to The Sun and The Daily Telegraph, the statistic of Patricia Hewitt (Labour, Leicester West) that “three quarters of [young people] support Britain’s membership of the EU” (HA) (a straw poll suggests that this is about right among the more intelligent members of my circle of acquaintance, the less intelligent not knowing what the EU was aside from a few platitudes about frogs’ legs and sieg heils), the assertion by Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East) that “the British people are not worried about legal immigration” (HA), and the amusing name of the constituency of Angus MacNeil (Scottish Nationalist Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar). As ever, I recommend to the interested parties that they read the debate on the Treaty.
The Bill underwent its Third Reading on the 11th of March 2008, and passed the same by a vote of 346 to 206. Mr. Cash then made a snide comment about the scrap value of the Mace.

Aaaaaand that’s it.

Bills 29/02-06/03/2008

First off, apologies for the long absence. It’s almost time for next week now; it’s very inauspicious. Alas.

British Board of Film Classification (Accountability to Parliament and Appeals) Bill
The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) is the body responsible for certifying films (and video games) before their release in the UK. This bill would, funnily enough, increase accountability to Parliament (by introducing Parliamentary scrutiny via the Home Affairs Committee for new members) and introduce an appeals mechanism against decisions made by the BBFC. It would also increase the penalties for illegal distribution of videos and DVD. (BD) Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury), the member introducing, made reference to “growing concern in this House and in the country about the rising tide of violence”; the purpose of his Bill is to limit the “growing availability in the media of extremely violent and explicitly sexual material” that is linked to “the growth in violent offences” (HA). The opposition to the bill was led by John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford), who was unconvinced that the Bill would actually help the situation at all (or, at least, that was the impression that I got); it shall be interesting to observe the proceedings.
Before we finish, I’d just like to dwell on these two gems: from Keith Vaz ( Labour, Leicester East), “someone with one of those small devices that young people have these days, the name of which I forget— [Interruption.] PlayStations or PSPs, something of that kind. [Interruption.] Well, whatever they are called…”, and from Stephen Pound (Labour, Ealing North), “…I do not think that I have heard anything so shocking as a Member of Her Majesty’s official Opposition speaking against the paper that is virtually the house magazine of the official Opposition.”
The Bill was read for the second time on the 29th of February 2008; the debate was adjourned to the 7th of March.

Drugs (Reclassification) Bill
A Bill that is mercifully simple. It will reverse the Government’s 2004 decision to change cannabis from a Class B drug to a Class C one, thereby increasing the penalties for its possession and supply.
The Bill underwent its first reading on the 28th of February 2008, and it was ordered to be read a second time on the 9th of May.

Expenses of Public Servants (Publication) Bill
“A Bill to make provision for the recording and publication of specific expenses incurred by certain public servants; to promote transparency in the use if public funds; and for connected purposes” (BD).
This Bill would introduce provisions making certain public authorities declare the expenses incurred by their members in areas such as transport in an official capacity, etc.
The Second Reading debate was delayed until the 6th of June 2008. (That is how it appears observing HB and BD.)

European Union (Amendment) Bill
Yes, it’s that one again. The Bill was considered further in committee, days 9, 10 and 11. The 10th day (4th March 2008) was the day when, to, I imagine, considerable surprise, the Speaker of the House selected Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat, Hallam)’s amendment to the Bill:
“That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the European Union (Amendment) Bill that it have power to make provision in the Bill for the holding of a referendum on the United Kingdom’s continued membership of the European Union.” (HA)
Those are Ed Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)’s words. Unsurprisingly, the debate on the debate on the vote (?) was voted down by an immense margin (it was this vote that Ann Apolis just caught the end of in last week’s sketch).
The 11th day was the far more important one; William Hague (Conservative, Richmond Yorkshire), the Shadow Foreign Secretary, had his amendment calling for a referendum selected, and a few others that said the same thing were considered at the same time. This is the day referred to in this post; to quote myself, the motion was defeated “311 votes to 248″.
The committee stage of the Bill ended on the 5th of March 2008; accordingly the Third Reading was scheduled for 11th March 2008.

Autumn Bank Holiday Bill
“A Bill to introduce a bank holiday in the Autumn” (BD). Though this may seem universally popular, it will probably be shouted down by the CBI.
The Bill was introduced via the Ten Minute Rule and read for the first time on the 4th of March 2008; its Second Reading is scheduled for the 9th of May 2008.

Fireworks Act 2003 (Amendment) Bill
“A Bill to make provision about the noise emitted by fireworks supplied in the United Kingdom” (BD).
The Bill was introduced via the Ten Minute Rule and read for the first time on the 5th of March 2008; its Second Reading is scheduled for the 17th of October 2008.

The European Union (Amendment) Bill – Second Reading

I wholeheartedly recommend reading the Hansard reports of the final day of the Committee of the Whole House’s considerations of the European Union (Amendment) Bill; I even more wholeheartedly recommend watching it when it is inevitably repeated on BBC Parliament. (It is a channel that I once saw repeating a broadcast of the 1983 General Election. That is beyond satire.)

There was a lot of good humour displayed by all members; I have to commend particularly the Minister for Europe, Jim Murphy (Labour, Renfrewshire East):

As one of the few Members who has spoken who was not here for the debates on the Maastricht treaty, it has been very interesting for me to hear the speeches for the first time. (HA)

as well as his opposite number Mark Francois (Conservative, Raleigh):

If that is the only argument that the Foreign Secretary can put to the House, I look forward to the rapid promotion of the Minister for Europe.

The amendment, number 293, was defeated by 311 votes to 248, and the clause was made to stand. Anne Main (Conservative, St Albans):

On a point of order, Sir Alan. I seek your guidance. I disapprove of the Liberal Democrats’ principled abstention, but I disapprove even more of hon. Members, particularly those on the Government Benches, photographing those making that principled abstention.

To which the reply came:

I hope that it is understood across the Committee that taking pictures on a camera in the Chamber is completely out of order. A device was in evidence that was clearly not being used for a telephone conversation, although that, too, would be out of order. I will report the matter to Mr. Speaker at the earliest opportunity.

After the business, an amendment tabled by William Cash (Conservative, Stone) to create a new Clause 9, “Supremacy of Parliament”, was defeated heavily, 48 to 380.

The Third Reading of the Bill was accordingly scheduled for the 6th of March 2008 (HA).

Sketch – 04/03/2008

By Ann Apolis

That’s the thing about the House of Commons. No-one really knows what’s going on.
I finally got through security and off the benches and into the gallery whilst they were having a Division on an Amendment. Of course, poor ole me scanning down the Order Paper has no clue what’s going on; the most I could do was be overexcited at the politicians so close at hand. (Look, there’s Lembit Opik, gabbling animatedly if lopsidedly to a colleague! Jack Straw! Charles Clarke! And Hoon, and Miliband, and Hague! And Boris Johnson, standing by the entrance to the chamber! Oh, the thrill!)
Soon, though, the Speaker stood and called for order. He might actually have been the Deputy Speaker; there was a note of panic in his voice as if he hadn’t done this before. “O-ord…” he stammered, his voice trailing away. He was evidently nervous. Perhaps it was the real Speaker after all.
In the most authoritative voice he could muster, he called out “The ayes to the right: 68. The noes to the left: 271.” I didn’t know whether this was a good thing; I didn’t know what the amendment was. Considering the massive margin of defeat though, I thought, it was probably the LibDem’s proposal.
Someone came in and whispered in the Speaker’s ear. He’d got the figures wrong, an argument Peter Hain probably wishes he’d thought of. Nevertheless, the proposal was crushed, even though I had no clue what it was. I fidgeted nervously.
Then, as suddenly as they had swirled in, they swirled out. It soon became obvious why; after the Chairman (improbably called Sir Alan) read out the week’s lottery numbers, up stood an extremely unconvincing accent which I was horrified to discover was genuine. It went by the name David Heathcoat-Amory, and was talking about how people didn’t ever listen to no votes in referendums. Iain Duncan Smith rose to agree with him a few times. I think he sympathises; the problem is that when he votes no nobody can hear him.
Difficult as it was to concentrate, what with the Quiet Man talking to the Discordant Brogue Man with Sir Alan occasionally asking them to get back on topic (or presumably, like Ed Davey last week, they’d be fired), I managed to pick up that they were talking about the Treaty of Lisbon. Apparently there were casserole clauses in it. It’s French for bridge (I thought it was French for saucepan, but ho hum) and it means that the EU can amend the Treaties without a vote if they vote to do so.
Ken Clarke interrupted him, the twin motivations of Euro- and casserole-philia spurring him to speak. Apparently there have been casserole clauses since Maastricht, but they haven’t been used. I’m not surprised, given that the Treaty of Maastricht was signed in 1992. All the casserole has probably gone off.
The accent, now long seperated from the body of its original owner, replied that the new casseroles were more powerful that the old ones. I slinked off with the remainder of the Labour Party; all this talk of casserole was making me hungry.

Bills 22-28/02/2008

Temporary and Agency Workers (Equal Treatment) Bill
“A Bill to provide for the protection of temporary and agency workers; to require the principle of equal treatment to be applied to temporary and agency workers; to make provision about the enforcement of rights of temporary and agency workers; and for connected purposes” (BD)
Though the debates were curiously reticent on the matter, it seems that temporary and agency workers have fewer rights in the workplace than full employees; this briefing from the Trades Union Congress seems to indicate (though I am by no means sure and would recommend that the reader check for themselves) that disparities in wage and holiday entitlements between ‘proper’ and agency workers doing the same job are fairly rife. This Bill would give agency workers the right not to be treated less favourably by anyone than a comparable direct worker (BD), a right that the Conservative Party argue that is already had (HA).
The Bill underwent its Second Reading, and has been sent to Committee, but no date has yet been given (HA).

Leasehold Reform Bill
“A Bill to amend the law relating to long leaseholders; to confer further powers on leaseholders; to make provision in relation to leaseholders in local council owned property and property owned by other social landlords; to confer powers on landlords to create sinking funds; to make requirements of landlords relating to the management of property; for conencted [sic] purposes” (BD)
To quote the Bill’s presenter, Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark & Bermondsey) , this is a Bill “to reform the law affecting people who have bought their properties from local authorities” (HA) – namely, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and Housing Act 1985 (BD). Not being particularly au fait with housing legislation myself, I can only quote some passages from the bill: amendment of “limitation of service charges: reasonableness” and “power to buy back a share of a property” for local authority landlords (BD).
The Bill’s Second Reading was adjourned until the 13th of June 2008 (BD).

Football Spectators and Sports Grounds Bill
“A Bill to amend the law relating to football banning orders and their enforcement; to confer further powers on the Football Licensing Authority and to amend its name; and for connected purposes” (BD)
This Bill would amend the Football Spectators Act 1989 to harmonise football bans across the United Kingdom: that is, spectators barred from attending matches by Anglo-Welsh courts would be unable to attend regulated football matches in Scotland or Northern Ireland (BD). It would also rename the Football Liscencing Authority to the Sports Grounds Safety Authority, and give it the authority to provide advice relating to safety at sports grounds (BD). Hence the name, I imagine.
The Bill was introduced for its First Reading and will undergo its Second Reading on the 25th of April 2008 (BD).

Climate Change (Sectoral Targets) Bill
“A Bill to set sectoral targets relating to energy generation and consumption; to make provision for the sectoral targets to be met; and for connected purposes” (BD)
This Bill would introduce more targets for energy efficiency, usage, and source (BD).
The Bill was scheduled for its Second Reading but dropped (HB).

Forces Widows’ Pensions (Equality of Treatment) Bill
“A Bill to provide for the equal treatment of Forces Widows’ pensions in respect of retirement from military service for the periods before 1973 and between 1973 and 2005; and for connected purposes” (BD)
The rules for Forces’ Widows pensions changed in 1973, for the benefit of the widows, but, curiously, the rule change only applied to the part of the pension earned for service on or after the 31st of March 1973 (BD). This Bill would apply the same rule to pensions earned before or after that date.
The Bill’s Second Reading was adjourned until the 17th of October 2008 (HB).

European Union (Amendment) Bill
“A Bill to make provision in connection with the Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon on 13th December 2007″ (BD)
With the failing of the European Constitution after French and Dutch ‘no’ votes in 2005, the European Union was in a spot of bother. It was, to quote Europa, “[a] European Union of 27 members [...] operating with rules designed for an EU of 15″. Thus in 2007 the Reform Treaty was written and signed at Lisbon. The European Union (Amendment) Bill is the Bill that would ratify the Treaty of Lisbon so that it could enter in legal force in the United Kingdom.
Much of the debate on the Bill, currently being considered before the Committee of the Whole House, focuses on what is seen by the Conservative Party as Gordon Brown’s renegading on the Labour Party’s manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on the European Constitution – a number of senior European figures have said that the Treaty establishing a Constitution of Europe and the Treaty of Lisbon are fundamentally the same.
This week, the House debated the provisions of the Treaty as regards international development, effectiveness of EU institutions and EU decision-making, and climate change (HB).

Copyright in Sound Recordings and Performers’ Rights (Term Extension) Bill
“A Bill to extend the duration of copyright in sound recordings and of performers’ rights; and for connected purposes” (BD)
At present, under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, the copyright on sound recordings extends to 50 years after they have made. Several senior figures in the world of music, among them Cliff Richard (BBC), have complained that this is unfair; this Bill would extend copyright periods to 95 years after the completion of the recording, by which time anyone who stood to lose out by it becoming public would presumably be dead.
The Bill was introduced for its First Reading and will undergo its Second Reading on the 7th of March 2008 (BD).

Small Print Bill
“A Bill to make requirements regarding the minimum size of print in certain documents, including those relating to advertising and contracts; and for connected purposes” (BD)
The fact that small print can contain highly devious terms and conditions is legendary; in his presentation of this Bill, Dr. Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe) cites an offer from Expedia that entailed the customer paying £8 per month to the company in return for vouchers of non-specific value (HA). The Small Print Bill would introduce a minimum size for small print to ensure it could be read (although it may of course not be understood), and as such the Bill has support from Age Concern, Help the Aged and the Trading Standards Institute (HA). As a Bill introduced under the Ten Minute Rule, its fate is rather uncertain, but Dr. Palmer seems to have a plan to bring this up in the EU consumer protection directive (HA). We shall see how it goes.
The Bill was introduced for its First Reading and will undergo its Second Reading on the 14th of March 2008 (BD).