down with murder inc

Blair says NO to London bomb public inquiry, says it would waste the Secret intelligence Services time

Immediately after the bombings there were calls for a public inquiry, but ministers said it would divert attention and resources away from pressing security and community issues...These issues were the continuing PSYOPS of security scares...round-ups...and propaganda. Now we are to be doled yet another whitewash - "a narrative" - just like the 9-11 commission report. It will be a fairy story.

Tony Blair said: "I do accept that people want to know exactly what happened. We will make sure they do." "If we ended up having a full scale public inquiry... we would end up diverting a massive amount of police and security service time and I don't think it would be sensible,"

Interesting then, that as Blair payed Troops in Iraq a little Christmas visit London Tube workers have voted for a strike because planned cutbacks woulkd lead to compromises in SAFETY... - read my narrative of events

Blair has also rejected a probe of N. Ireland spy scandal and...nixed a probe into CIA rendition flights in the UK

The Death of Liberty in Britain

On 1st January 2006, the powers bestowed on the police will dramatically change. This has received little if any coverage in the media. The power invested in individual police officers will be significantly greater than at any time in the history of the police service. The reason for this? The Serious and Organised Crime Act (SOCA).

Until 31st December 2005, the power to arrest was governed by statute, predominantly by the powers conferred under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). Certain offences were deemed 'arrestable' others not so, unless strict conditions applied. These conditions are listed in the legislation. Under SOCA, you can be arrested for any offence from not wearing a seatbelt to murder. Each arrest must be justified by the police officer concerned for a variety of reasons. The main difference is that the reasons are not identified by statue. The legislation provides a number of examples where the power of arrest may be used, but quantifies this by stating that other circumstances may apply. This means that the individual police officer must justify why the suspect has been arrested. They are not constrained by a legal list.

Powers of search have also changed. Under old legislation, to search private premises for evidence of an offence prior to arrest for example, a warrant needed to be obtained from a Magistrate. Under S8 of PACE, the offence under investigation needed to be a serious arrestable offence. This was basically murder and the like, and offences involving serious loss or gain and so on. Such warrants were valid for one month and applied to one address only.

The new law has abolished the term 'serious arrestable offence'. The type of offences that warrants can be applied for has widened considerably. Search warrants can now be valid for up to three months, and can cover more than one address. Police will be able to apply for search warrants that allow for entry to a specified premises an unlimited number of times within three months. Every entry after the first can be made with the authority of a police Inspector. Should further premises be identified during a search, these premises can also be searched with the authority of an Inspector. Neither scenario necessitates a return to Magistrates Court for a further warrant.

A higher level of warrant is called a Production Order. This is obtained from a Crown Court Judge and relates to allowing the police access to private information such as bank accounts and so on. This power also related to serious arrestable offences. This has also changed to cover a larger variety of lesser offences. - worldwearydetective.blogspot.

Blair outlines plans to evict nuisance neighbours

Hélène Mulholland Friday January 6, 2006

Homeowners who cause problems for their neighbours will be evicted under proposals outlined today by the prime minister, Tony Blair.

Mr Blair revealed plans to evict nuisance neighbours and leave them to fend for themselves in what could be seen as the toughest move to date to curb antisocial behaviour.

Those guilty of causing a persistent nuisance will be subject to a closure order. Only those with vulnerable children will be rehoused by councils - but in a different area.

Homeowners will have their houses boarded up for at least three months in an attempt to curb antisocial behaviour, he told the Sun today.

The new measures would be enforced by local councils and police. Full details of the plan will be released after a three-month consultation beginning next week.

Other measures due for consultation will give police extended powers to close drug dealers' flats and other premises used for breaking the law.

The civil liberties of people to live free from fear are paramount, Mr Blair reportedly told the Sun.

"People have to know that if they are making life hell for others they are going to pay the price", Mr Blair said. "There's a duty to respect the rights of those who live around you." He added: "They mustn't be allowed to think that nothing will happen to them if they carry on. Once they start to realise there is a comeback from the community, you often don't need to carry out the punishment.

A Downing Street spokesman confirmed today's report. "This is already policy in Scotland," he said. "Police can close premises for up to three months and that is what we are consulting on doing in England and Wales. It is subject to consultation." - guardian

MI5 will get new powers to bug MPs
Furious cabinet revolt as Blair gives green light for security services to spy on elected representatives
By Francis Elliott, Whitehall Editor Published: 15 January 2006
Tony Blair is preparing to scrap a 40-year ban on tapping MPs' telephones, despite fierce Cabinet opposition, The Independent on Sunday can reveal. He is expected to formally announce to the Commons within weeks that MPs can no longer be sure that the security services and others will not intercept their communications.
Until now, successive administrations have pledged that there should be no tapping "whatsoever" of MPs' phones, and that they would be told if it was necessary to breach the ban. But that convention - known as the Wilson Doctrine, after Harold Wilson, the prime minister who introduced it - is to be abandoned in an expansion of MI5 powers following the London bombings.
MPs should be treated in the same way as other citizens and will be given the same safeguards against wrongful tapping, the Prime Minister will say. The decision provoked a furious row in the Cabinet just before Christmas, when the Secretary of State for Defence, John Reid, voiced his opposition.
His outburst surprised other ministers, since he is seen as one of Mr Blair's closest allies and not known for his support for civil liberties.
"Reid demanded to know why on earth we were going down this route," said one government colleague. "It was all the more surprising since you would have thought the MoD is one of the departments most in favour of increased surveillance powers."
A Downing Street spokesman last night said: "The recommendation has been received and will be considered in due course." Mr Blair was last night put on notice that any attempt to tap MPs' phones would be bitterly opposed in the Commons. Andrew Mackinlay, Labour MP for Thurrock, said it was a "hallmark of a civilised country" that its state did not spy on elected representatives.
"This goes to the heart of what is to have a free Parliament not some privilege enjoyed by MPs. Constituents, pressure groups and other organisations need to know for sure that they are talking to their elected representatives in complete confidence."
He is to press for the Commons' Committee on Standards and Privileges to urgently investigate the Downing Street plans to ditch the convention.
Professor Peter Hennessy, the Whitehall and constitutional expert, also called on MPs to question Mr Blair's intentions. "It seems pretty odd to me that they should be doing this," he said.
There has been a marked expansion of surveillance in Britain since 1997. New technology and new laws mean that Britons are among the most spied-on citizens on earth. Sweeping new powers to snoop on emails, texts and other communications were included in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, while satellite technology offers multiple new surveillance opportunities for the secret state.
Mr Blair has confirmed at least three timesthat his government observed the Wilson Doctrine, most recently in 2003 when it became clear that MI5 had been bugging Sinn Fein's Gerry Adams, who has not taken his seat and so is not formally an MP. - independent.co.uk

Find out what the PM means by "Respect"
11 January 2006 "It is about putting the law abiding majority back in charge of their local communities."
Tony Blair has launched his action plan on respect - his aim to "eradicate the scourge of anti-social behaviour" from society. It includes a package of proposals aimed at detering bad behaviour while investing in good behaviour. This includes extra help for parents, more activities for young people and greater penalities for wrong-doers. - number-10.gov.uk

Louise Casey answered questions on The Respect Action Plan in a Downing Street webchat.

Thomas Muirhead: How does imposing fines and other punishments fit with an agenda of respect? Isn't it an agenda of fear?

Louise replies: Thomas. People need to know that there are rules in decent societies and if you break those rules you face consequences. We can only have liberty and live without fear if we are secure in the knowledge that rules are there to make us safe.

- number-10.gov.uk

Mc Education

Security services and police to get UK air passenger details in advance

· 40m on domestic flights and ferries affected · Law will facilitate scrutiny of terror suspects

Alan Travis, home affairs editor - Tuesday January 24, 2006 - The Guardian

The police and security services are to be given access to advanced travel details on more than 40 million passengers a year who travel on domestic flights and ferries within Britain under legislation to be announced tomorrow.

The new power in the police and justice bill will give the authorities the ability to screen and track the movements of suspected terrorists and serious criminals within Britain for the first time.

It is expected that airlines will have to provide the personal online details of all passengers as they book seats and subsequently check in at the airport. There are discussions with the travel industry over what documents passengers will have to show before they can board a flight in Britain.

The new system will enable them to check names against watchlists for terror suspects and wanted criminals and to develop a "profiling system" of those worthy of further scrutiny. It is hoped that the system will help the security services develop a picture of terror and crime suspects' travel patterns and networks.

On specified routes where there is considered to be a major threat, the police will be able to demand the provision of "bulk data" - blanket passenger and crew lists - on all flights travelling on that route before departure. The Liberal Democrats said last night that they were extremely concerned about the routine surveillance of domestic passengers and claimed that Britain was now building a surveillance infrastructure unparalleled in the free world.

The monitoring of domestic travellers builds on the experience of a three-year pilot scheme under which the details of 10 million passengers on selected international flights have been monitored since last January.

Known as Project Semaphore this pilot scheme receives data on passengers leaving Britain only after their flights have left, yet the Home Office claims that eight terror suspects have been detained in the UK or overseas as a result. One person has also been arrested for indecency and a child porn suspect identified. The police say that access to advance information would have enabled them to stop the terror suspects boarding their flights.

At present the police have the power only to collect passenger data for counter-terrorism purposes under the Terrorism Act 2000: "These powers do not enable them to obtain information for serious and organised crime purposes, nor do they allow the capture of information in advance of a passenger travelling. In addition, the current legislation does not allow the provision of bulk data."

The immigration bill going through parliament will initiate an advanced passenger information scheme for international flights in and out of Britain as part of a wider European move that has been the subject of a major dispute between the United States and the European Union. It is part of the government's E-borders programme.

The home secretary, Charles Clarke, is to announce that he intends to extend these powers to all domestic passengers travelling on flights and ferries. Airlines such as Ryanair and Easyjet already insist on photo-ID before a passenger boards a domestic flight. Some airlines have expressed concerns that the demand for online information will extend existing check-in times.

One operator has estimated that the process will add 40 seconds to the 60-second average check-in time, but that included manually typing in the home address and place of birth of each passenger. It is anticipated that identity documents will contain, sooner rather than later, such information on a machine readable strip.

The police say that a combination of operational experience, specific intelligence and historical analysis will be used to build up pictures of suspect passengers and patterns of travel behaviour. They claim this will enable them to develop a more targeted approach which will reduce the likelihood of innocent travellers being stopped and incorrect intelligence reports being filed. But such "profiling" of passengers has proved highly controversial in the United States.

The new Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Alistair Carmichael, said last night: "I am extremely concerned at the suggestion that ordinary people could be put under routine surveillance on domestic flights. Tracking cross-border movements in and out of the UK is necessary for proper immigration control. But there will have to be some pretty compelling arguments before we allow that principle to be extended to every journey inside the UK.

"It is increasingly clear that the government is building a surveillance infrastructure which is unparalleled in the free world," he said.

Gus Hosein of the pressure group Privacy International said: "New Labour has decided that it is no longer a crime for government to amass all that they can on each and every one of us. This is a novel interpretation of 'big government'. " - The Guardian

Yard buys 'SAS' anti-terror helicopters
Nicholas Rufford and Steven Swinford
BRITAIN'S biggest police force has bought three high-speed helicopters to take rapid reaction teams to the heart of terrorist emergencies. Elite firearms officers from the Metropolitan police will be transported to incidents at speeds of up to 150mph before they abseil into crowded city areas - prompting comparisons with American Swat teams.
The move is significant because it represents a convergence between police and military tactics. An incident of the gravity of the 1980 Iranian embassy siege, which was dealt with by the SAS, might in future be dealt with by the police.
The Met stepped up its armed response capabilities after the July 7 bomb attacks in London.
The three helicopters, costing £3m apiece, will each carry a squad of six. The first two will be in operation by the end of the year and the third in 2007. They are being equipped with abseiling equipment that will allow four men to descend simultaneously out of a hovering helicopter.
The Met's machines will have the full panoply of law enforcement kit - including Nitesun searchlights, the Skyshout public address system, gyro-stabilised cameras, winches and heat-seeking sensors. It will cost about £1,500 an hour to keep the helicopters airborne, excluding the cost of the crew.
As well as transporting armed response teams, the helicopters will also be used for the more conventional police work of helping to track down offenders and assist police on the ground. Digital cameras with thermal imaging will be able to spot suspects hiding on the ground from a height of 2,500ft, reducing the disturbance suffered by residents from existing helicopters.
The machines will be based at the Met's air support unit in Loughton, Essex, which is a five-minute flight from central London. They will be added to an existing fleet of three smaller AS 355N Twin Squirrel helicopters.
Andy Hailwood, a former firearms officer, said the police needed to upgrade their equipment to the standards of the military in order to combat more ruthless criminals: "You are dealing with Turkish Cypriot gangs and eastern European gangs who come from a completely different culture.
"They don't have the same value of life; they are armed with automatic weapons and even anti-personnel grenades."
The introduction of more aggressive police tactics is likely to create concern after recent controversies over innocent members of the public who have mistakenly been shot.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, the human rights group, said the police risked straying beyond their remit of keeping communities safe. "Britain's police are revered around the world because of our great tradition of consent-based policing," she said. "The military, which is specifically governed by rules of war, has a vastly different mandate than the police who make our communities safe. These lines must not be blurred."
Crispin Black, a former government intelligence analyst, described the move towards military-style policing as inevitable. "Britain has a traditionally non-military style policing, which is being chipped away at all the time because of the challenges they face," he said. "Things are happening much faster now and the threat is much higher, so inevitably they are being pushed towards a more militaristic approach." - timesonline.co.uk/

How handy: Huge robbery as a distraction

Securitas say too early to confirm sum stolen in UK depot raid; yet UK Media says its the Biggest in UK history
Securitas AB said it is still cooperating closely with the police over the raid at its depot in Tonbridge, UK, and is unable at present to confirm the amount stolen.
'What we are doing at the moment is obviously still cooperating with the police because its a fairly sensitive situation we have because of the hostage element, and obviously the police are trying to control the whole media piece,' Securitas's UK Country Manager Frank Williams told AFX News. The armed gang made off with 25-40 mln stg after members disguised themselves as police to abduct the site manager and his family to gain access to the high security depot.
flashback - Sudan Genocide was used by the Blair Junta as a scare story as UK police faced Racism charges... this was followed by the Northern Bank robbery in Belfast which came in December 2004 next were scare stories such as Sudan 1 food coloring and the takeover of MG Rover Group - ALL just before the 2005 elections which paved the way for G8 / Live 8 & the 7/7 bombings [who is being paid off for the next terror attack?]
COMPARE: we see MG Rover China deal, food scare [bird flu] war criminal Ratko Mladic, the former commander of the Bosnian Serb army is reported near capture with no proof & the Securitas Bank robbery which sees highlights made of suspician towards anyone carrying large sums of cash
25-53 million stolen - er could you narrow that down a bit ? were they dressed as Anti-Terror police? or were they actually an intelligence operation?

The UK Media are playing it all out like some movie plot...with estimated figures reaching 40 million and describing it as a operation with military precision Channel 4 even suggested it had IRA links - it is the TOP story...while Iraq crumbles into a civil war & violence in Darfur / Nigeria / Palastine are put on the back burner / ignored

a typicle example of fearmongering in Police state UK
the following story, mentioning an 'imminent'
FA Cup soccer final threat,
is released a day before the League cup final [Mun U v Wigan]

Wales in frontline for terror strike
Feb 25 2006 - Robin Turner
WALES is as much at risk of terrorism as London, a defence expert warned last night.
As residents returned nervously to the Swansea block of flats evacuated for 48 hours by anti-terror police yesterday, Dr Paul Moorcraft said venues such as the Millennium Stadium are potential targets.
Last night South Wales Police announced they had been granted an additional three days to question the arrested man. Police confirmed the search of the 37-year-old's flat at Ozanam Court was continuing last night. Cardiff-born Dr Moorcraft, director of the Centre for Foreign Policy Analysis in London said, "Wales and Scotland were immune from IRA attacks because of a kind of Celtic covenant.

"But the international jihad has no such arrangement and places like the Millennium Stadium which will house the FA Cup this year could be seen as targets."
Dr Moorcraft, formerly editor of Defence Review and now a consultant, added,"While the vast majority of Muslims in this country are law-abiding and peaceful there are dissident elements.
"It is just as possible to occur in places like Newport, Cardiff and Swansea as in Bradford, Leeds or London. "I am not commenting on any individual arrest or case here, but no one should think Wales is a backwater in the world against terror."
Dr Moorcraft said yesterday he felt that after the attacks last year in London by suicide bombers using explosives, the next attack could use chemical, nuclear or biological weapons. He said, "Fire and ambulance services right across the country are gearing up for such an attack. We must all be 100% vigilant."
Residents of Ozanam Court, Portmead, Swansea, allowed back home by police yesterday were still wondering about the "potentially harmful substance" which led to the dramatic arrest of one of their neighbours by anti-terror police.
All 50 people living in the tightly curving cul-de-sac in the north of Swansea, were evacuated after the 37-year-old man's gunpoint arrest on Wednesday.
The teatime drama took place after anti-terrorist squad officers in London received a tip-off that the substance either was, or had been, stored at the two-bedroomed ground floor Gwalia Housing Association flat.
But yesterday, while the flat where the arrested man had been living for some time was still being thoroughly searched, the neighbours were back in their homes.
Police are understood to have taken DNA swabs from the flat and documents and other belongings have been removed over the past few days.
Bomb squad officers were seen checking out the flat in the hours after the arrest.
And plain-clothed forensic scientists who went in did not wear bio-hazard suits suggesting the shadowy intelligence on the flat did not relate to chemical or biological hazards. And when residents at Ozanam Court (named after a French saint who helped the poor) were told to leave hurriedly on Wednesday a number of them said police warned there could be a risk of an explosion.
Debbie Jones, who lives nearby and who put up friends and relatives from Ozanam Court said, "They all said the police told them they had to get out because there could be an explosion."
Chief Superintendent Mel Jehu, divisional commander for Swansea, said, "The residents have now been allowed back to their homes and we would like to thank them for their co-operation and support over the past two days.
"The immediate danger has now passed and we are now doing everything we can to reassure the residents that they can return to a sense of normality, while a detailed investigation takes its course."
There have been a number of arrests in Wales under the Terrorism Act.
Three men in Newport, all asylum seekers, were arrested after being seen taking photographs near the Celtic Manor last August where an EU summit was to have been held.
And in November last year a man was arrested in Cardiff under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and is now awaiting an immigration hearing.
Since the 9/11 attacks hundreds of people have been arrested in the UK under anti-terror laws, but fewer than 20 have been convicted.
Between September 11 2001 and December 31 2004, there were 701 arrests in the UK under the Terrorism Act.
But only 119 of these had faced charges under this legislation, with 45 of them also being charged for other offences.
A further 135 people were charged under other legislation - including terrorist offences covered in other criminal law, such as the use of explosives. - icwales.icnetwork.co.uk

How we move ever closer to becoming a totalitarian state
The Prime Minister claims to be defending liberty but a barely noticed Bill will rip the heart out of parliamentary democracy
Henry Porter - Sunday March 5, 2006 - The Observer
The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is hardly an aerodynamic title; it doesn't fly from the lips. People have difficulty remembering the order of the words and what exactly will be the effect of this apparently dull piece of lawmaking.
But in the dusty cradle of Committee A, a monster has been stirring and will, in due course, take flight to join the other measures in the government's attack on parliamentary democracy and the rights of the people. The 'reform' in the title allows ministers to make laws without the scrutiny of parliament and, in some cases, to delegate that power to unelected officials. In every word, dot and comma, it bears the imprint of New Labour's authoritarian paternity.
Like all Labour's anti-libertarian bills, it appears in relatively innocuous guise. The bill was presented last year as a way of improving a previous Labour act and is purportedly designed to remove some of the burden of regulation that weighs on British business and costs billions of pounds every year. Labour says it will enable ministers to cut regulation without needing to refer to parliament and so simplify and speed things up.
The reality is that the beneficiaries of this bill will not be industry and business, but ministers and the executive, who will enjoy a huge increase in their unscrutinised power. As with the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, which was presented as modernising local and national emergency measures but which went much further to give ministers arbitrary powers, this bill takes another chunk out of our centuries- old democracy.
The really frightening thing about last week's proceedings is that there were just two journalists watching as the minister piloting the legislation, Jim Murphy, refused to debate constitutional implications. Instead, he intoned replies drafted in advance by himself and, presumably, his civil servants. Disgracefully, he dismissed as 'debating points' considered objections from Tories Christopher Chope and Oliver Heald and Liberal Democrats David Heath and David Howarth. All raised the Kafkaesque possibility that this bill was so demonically drafted that an unscrupulous government could use it to modify the bill itself and so extend its powers even further.
Watching, I reflected that this was truly how democracy is extinguished. Not with guns and bombs, but from the inside by officials and politicians who deceive with guile and who no longer pretend to countenance the higher interests of the constitution.
The 'debating points' were rather more than that. They concern the powers that may be granted to ministers that could further damage the concept of habeas corpus, alter the law on Britain's relationship with the Commonwealth, on the relationship with the EU, on extradition, the appropriation of property and the criminal law. In theory, even the monarchy could be affected.
This is to say little about common law, the centuries of precedents and rulings which contain so many of the historic rights of British culture. 'Oh no,' said the minister, as if talking to a child, 'ministers will give assurances; they will confine themselves to the regulations that concern business.'
If that is the case, why does the bill not say so? Why is it drafted so loosely? Why is Jim Murphy doing so much to protect its versatility? Why won't he put the safeguards in the bill from the start? There can be only one answer: ministers want to bypass parliament and transfer authority to themselves and their officials under the cover of helping business.
Mr Murphy has let it be known that the government might concede powers for select committees to veto use of the fast-track process for issues they consider controversial. But it is worth remembering that membership of select committees is controlled by the whips and that the chairmen are generally biddable. We should also wonder why Mr Murphy has not already drafted this veto, if he genuinely wants to protect and reassure parliament.
The essential point, however, is that the individual decisions taken by ministers as a result of this new law will not be scrutinised in the chamber of the House of Commons.
Sometimes, I wonder if those of us worried about the attacks on British democracy by Tony Blair's government are getting things out of proportion or misunderstanding the Prime Minister's mission, as he described it in last week's Observer
I certainly understand that the capillaries of a society run from bottom to top, bearing all the bad news, intractable problems, mood swings and crises; that it is all ceaselessly pumped upwards in the direction of the Prime Minister; and that the view afforded in Downing Street must sometimes be truly extraordinary, a seething, organic, Hogarthian panorama of delinquency and unreason.
A Prime Minister must try to reach beyond the day-to-day business of government, frantic though it is, and make sense of what he sees below, seek the connecting threads, order up the policies and implement them so that improvement becomes possible. Few will disagree that this is the chief impulse of Tony Blair's premiership. As he told us long ago, he is a moderniser. Modernising is still the closest thing he has to a political ideology and it was significant how many times the words modern and modernity appeared in last week's article. At one point, he declared: 'For me, this is not an issue of liberty but of modernity', as if liberty and modernity were somehow at odds.
Because he is by his own account well-intentioned, he believes that nothing should get in the way of this modernising purpose, the exercise of his benevolent reason on the turbulent society below. Like Mrs Thatcher, he has become almost mystically responsible for the state of the nation. And like Mrs Thatcher, he finds that after a long period in Number 10, he is still surrounded by sluggishness and resistance. Public services are slow to reform; the judiciary obstructs ministerial action with footling concerns about individual rights; and parliament is agonisingly slow to produce the fast-acting laws he craves.
You can see why, as time runs out, he has the need to cut through it all to achieve the things that he so dearly believes are right for our society. That is the way a moderniser works, because it is the only measure of success.
Yet this addiction to the idea of modernity is also a kind of arrogance about the times we live in, a sense that no Prime Minister has ever faced the problems coming across his desk. It indicates a common condition in modernisers and modernists of all hues and that is an almost complete lack of a grounding in history. If Blair was more interested in British history, he would understand that the present, while certainly unique, is not uniquely awful.
But more important, he would see the great damage his laws are doing to the institutions we have inherited - to the constitution, to the tradition of parliamentary sovereignty, to the independence of the judiciary, to individual rights and to the delicate relationship between the individual and the state. All of them are products of British history. They are not perfect, but they make up a fairly large part of the body politic. This is who we are.
This rush of laws presented to parliament in disguise, with their hidden sleeper clauses, are a disaster for our democracy. They are changing our country rapidly and profoundly. What I saw in Committee A was the triumph of Tony Blair's modernity over liberty. - guardian

Changing the law at will - without parliamnetary scrutiny

The boringly-named Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is in fact a very dangerous piece of legislation. It grants any minister the ability to amend, replace, or repeal existing legislation. The frightening thing is this: they would be able to do so without having to allow Parliament to examine it properly, taking away the ability of Parliament to meaningfully represent the citizens of this country.
Limitations
The only limitations are that:
the changes may not impose new taxes, create new criminal offenses with a sentence of more than 2 years, or authorise forced entry, search or seizure, or compel the giving of evidence.
This means that if a minister got up in a bad mood, he could decide to make laughing in public punishable by 2 years in prison by amending the Serious Organised Crime Act. Or if he was late to work, he could arbitrarily do away with speed limits by amending the Road Traffic Act.
More worryingly, the minister involved can amend any existing legislation; nothing is protected. So, as was pointed out in The Times by 6 law professors from Cambridge, a minister could abolish trial by jury, suspend habeus corpus (your right not to be arbitrarily arrested), or change any of the legislation governing the legal system.
That's 700 years of democracy and the rule of law, thrown away in a heartbeat. What's left of the Magna Carta, the foundation of just about all modern democracies, would be finally gone, and our Parliament, which has influenced democratic systems all over the world, would just be a footnote in history.
What Is It For?
The bill is designed to allow ministers to cut down on red tape, eliminating unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy without having to go through Parliament, thus speeding up the whole process and making it more efficient.
However, there is nothing in the bill that restricts it only to that use. It can be used to change any legislation, without exception.
Rigorous Safeguards
The government has referred to the protection provided by the "rigorous safeguards" that are built into the bill. However, these are in fact far from rigorous. The only safeguard is that the minister who is making the order should be convinced that:
the policy objective intended to be secured by the provision could not be satisfactorily secured by non-legislative means; the effect of the provision is proportionate to the policy objective; the provision, taken as a whole, strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected by it; the provision does not remove any necessary protection; the provision does not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom which that person might reasonably expect to continue to exercise.
These are vague at best, and seeing as only the minister involved has to be satisfied with the answers, these safeguards give no protection at all.
We Have Their Word
When presenting the bill, Jim Murphy MP, who seems to have the job of getting this bill passed, said:
I give the House clear undertakings, which I shall repeat in Committee, that the orders will not be used to implement highly controversial reforms. - House of Commons debates, Febuary 9th 2006
This is not enough. The current government can promise not to abuse it's power all it likes, but can it speak for every government that will exist after it? If the bill should not be used for "controversial reforms", then that limitation should be written into the bill. As it stands, the bill can modify any existing legislation, without exception.
Do you trust the current government with that kind of power? Even if you do, do you automatically trust every future government with that same power?
Self Modifying
One of the most dangerous aspects of the Bill is that it also applies to itself. This means that even the few safeguards and limitations that are built into the bill could be removed without Parliamentary scrutiny.
Rushed Through
On top of all it's problems, the bill is being rushed through Parliament very quickly. This bill has massive significance for the constitution of the UK, and yet Parliament will have only one hour in which to debate it during it's third reading.
The bill recently completed it's progress through the Committee Stage of the House of Commons without any major changes, so this bill is in serious danger of going all the way without being stopped!
saveparliament.org.