Murphy's Law
Wednesday, February 22, 2006

When I finally succumb to the massive and catastrophic stress-induced brain embolism that is to be, no doubt, my final destination, the coroner will be able to pinpoint the exact time of my terrible and furious demise to whenever the pointless junior government minister, with a dangerous and unpopular piece of new law to sell, was interviewed on either the Today programme or PM that day.

This morning it was the turn of Jim Murphy, Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office, to usher me just that little bit closer to the big dirt bath. Murphy was the luckless soul sent onto the Today programme to defend the Furtherance of Unaccountable Government Bill.

For those just coming in, otherwise known as the The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, this harmless-sounding piece of proposed legislation has bothered those of us who think that our barely accountable public servants - along with our not at all accountable public servants - should be kept on a short lead.

This is arcane, hard to engage with stuff but nonetheless has some pretty far-reaching consequences should this new legislation's power fall into the wrong hands. It's about how we are governed and what those to who we lend power do with that responsibility. Put simply, the The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, as Marcel Berlins explained in the Guardian the other day, will make it...

...possible for the government, by ministerial order, without a debate in parliament, to create new criminal offences, punishable with less than two years imprisonment. It could also, according to Cambridge law professor John Spencer (who is not alone in his analysis), introduce house-arrest, give the police stronger powers of arrest and interrogation, set up new courts, and in effect re-write the rules on immigration, nationality, divorce, inheritance and the appointment of judges.

That's a pretty disturbing list, I hope you'll agree, particularly under this Government who are determined to be harder and nastier than anybody else when it comes to The War Against Terror. However, taking the basic premise that we're not dealing with Darth Vader and friends here, I think we can say that if/when this bill is passed into law, dissidents aren't suddenly going to find themselves locked in their homes with their knackers wired to the mains.

But this is to forget the law of unintended consequences and as I said the other day, when your thirst for efficiency, or for at least the facade of efficiency, produces the same outcome as if you'd set out to be a bastard, you can't really be too sore, in my opinion, if people start refusing to make the distinction. "I didn't mean to hurt you," often doesn't impress those on the receiving end. It's a trust thing.

Murphy, in his interview (RealPlayer required), did at least give a few a pointers as to what intentions lie behind the bill and just what the Government mean when they say they will place "safeguards" within it. As to why we need the bill, Murphy played his joker, otherwise known as the Armageddon Gambit. Don't argue your case on its merits, just scare the shit...

The real danger is what happens if we don't introduce a bill of this sort. We are trying to do all we can to maintain UK competitiveness, business competitiveness, economic growth, employment levels in a global economy where we face challenges from the emerging economies.

You hear that? If we don't get this bill, we'll be swept away by the Yellow Peril. Don't blame Jim when you're sewing Nike Trainers for a bowl of rice a day - it'll be those bastard urban intellectuals' fault for not letting him have his way.

So where's the pressure for this bill coming from? Here's the clue: UK competitiveness, business competitiveness, economic growth, employment levels. The "stakeholders" in this bill are the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors, British Chambers of Commerce.

Maybe paying a bunch of honking, low-wage conservatives massive salaries is all that stands between me and a third world lifestyle. I'm not a complete idiot, maybe British business is being choked by red tape. Frankly, I don't really care enough to find out, although anything that might make Digby Jones' life slightly less pleasant can't be all bad if you ask me.

But you would have thought that that Britain's business community would have had the law of unintended consequences closer to the front of their minds when they lobbied for this bill, particularly after Gary Mulgrew, Giles Darby and David Bermingham fell foul of the Extradition Act 2003. The CBI were sanguine about swarthy suspects being sent to Guantanamo under the act but less happy when it was applied to wholesome white collar types. Where's Martin Niemöller when you need to misquote him?

But all is well. There are safeguards to protect us:
The relevant select committees of the House of Commons will have a veto on every single proposal.

For those with rich and fulfilling lives who don't know what select committees are, here's how Charter88 defines them:

Select Committees of MPs carry out detailed investigations into policy matters and government performance, and produce detailed reports and recommendations. Sometimes they will draw up and recommend new legislation.

Hurrah, you cry, select committees will save us. Ah, well, Charter88 continue...

But there the Committees' powers end: they have no right to ensure that their reports or recommendations or proposed Bills are debated by parliament.

...and it gets worse...
Currently select committees, whose job is to investigate government actions and performance, are appointed by the government - i.e. the whips draw up the list which is then voted for en bloc in the House.

Members or select committees are placemen allocated according to the electoral makeup of Parliament. What if, and I know this is a cynical point of view, any scrutiny of new laws proposed by a government under this new power divided along party lines with the dominant (that is, government) party winning the day?

Regardless of party loyalties, however, it's still MP's faults that we need to give the Government power to do whatever it likes. As Murphy said:

We still have a one-size-fits-all approach to better regulation. So regardless of how controversial or the scale of a proposal, it still has to go through exacting parliamentary scrutiny which some times can take a number of years. That's not fit for purpose.

MPs. The lazy bastards. Clogging the arteries of the mother of parliaments. And on our dollar as well. But if that's the case - and Parliamentary scrutiny isn't always the constitutional bottleneck Murphy would have us believe - why does Andrew Miller, Labour MP for Ellesmere Port and Neston and chairman of the Commons Regulatory Reform Committee (on this occasion, granted, no placeman he) say:

Our report demonstrates that the current parliamentary procedures are not responsible for delaying regulatory reform orders.

Our evidence shows that departments themselves are slow in identifying the unnecessary regulations, in bringing the proposals for orders to Parliament and in making the orders once Parliament has made its recommendation on individual reforms.

Government departments. The lazy bastards. Clogging the arteries of the mother of parliaments. And on our dollar as well.

The interview's worth listening to if only to hear how little Murphy gave away. He's few bones to throw to the dogs on this one. Oh, and the - ha ha! - jokey exchange about Prince Charles - ha ha! - and his so-called dissidence right at the end, oh, it's a hoot.

So, as others have said it's time to do something. My MP doesn't answer my letters so I'm left whistling in the dark somewhat. Her voting record wouldn't inspire confidence even if I wasn't being ignored. So I charge you, dear reader, with the noble quest of rescuing democracy.

To conclude - with the requisite glib, broader point - in the nine years since they came to power New Labour have pretty much made it up as they went a long. That's what happens when you swap principle for power at any cost - the star you used to sail by is obscured by clouds and you have to guess where you're heading. There are no lighthouses. When Gordon Brown ascends to the throne he may find himself a Scot on the rocks.


13 Comments:

On February 23, 2006 12:30 AM, Anonymous Pete in Dunbar said...

As far as I could tell the entire content of the 'safeguards' on offer is that the government promise that they won't be naughty, honest, and no-we-haven't-got-our-fingers-crossed.

I don't know about you, but somehow I suspect that safeguards of this calibre aren't exactly safe, and won't provide much of a guard either.  


On February 23, 2006 6:45 AM, Blogger Serf said...

Surely the answer to their problems is to stop passing so much bloody legislation.

The CBI and friends are thick. I wrote to the Federation of Small Businesses and pointed out that the bill will be used to speed up implementation of EU regulations, which is where half their troubles come from. I am awaiting an answer, but not holding my breath.  


On February 23, 2006 8:32 AM, Blogger wonkotsane said...

Some more sides to this bill you might not have picked up on:

Here, here and here.  


On February 23, 2006 11:23 AM, Blogger Mr Eugenides said...

Having had the pleasure of Jim Murphy's company on more than one occasion, I can tell you that I wouldn't trust him to clip my toenails, let alone introduce a Bill curtailing the checks and balances on the Executive's power.

"Always believe the worst" is a horrible, disspiriting maxim, but unfortunately fits this government like a glove.  


On February 23, 2006 1:46 PM, Anonymous redpesto said...

However, taking the basic premise that we're not dealing with Darth Vader and friends here, I think we can say that if/when this bill is passed into law, dissidents aren't suddenly going to find themselves locked in their homes with their knackers wired to the mains.


Maybe, Justin...but it's obvious that Nu Labour has being heading for the Dark Side for a very long time now. Charles Clarke doesn't have to fall into a vat of molten lava (or whatever) to re-emerge as a wheezy evil overlord. The bill is effectively a 1933-style Enabling Act for our times. I am not optimistic that either Nu Labour MPs or the Tories will challenge it.  


On February 23, 2006 2:00 PM, Anonymous redpesto said...

...or, if you want to kick me for invoking that law about mentioning the N*z*s in an internet discussion, think of the bill as having more Henry VIII clauses than he had wives:

The House of Lords Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers defined a Henry VIII clause as, "... a provision in a bill which enables primary legislation to be amended or repealed by subordinate legislation with or without further Parliamentary scrutiny" (HLP 57 1992/93). The clauses were so named from the Statute of Proclamations 1539, which gave King Henry VIII power to legislate by proclamation.  


On February 23, 2006 2:33 PM, Blogger ejh said...

You're not wrong about Digby, or "Pigby" as I somewhat immaturely think of him. Still, it's more grown-up than his frequent appearances on TV in which he regularly throws his toys out of the pram every time he doesn't get everything he wants. It's one of the most loathsome spectacles of the present age.

Indeed the country as a whole is dominated by fat businessmen and professional people who see nothing untoward in screaming the place down and claiming they're being oppressed if they are not put at the front of the queue in all things. Most people would expect an eight-year-old to understand that you cannot always get everything you want and that the common good is more important: yet most contemporary social and economic thought seems to be based on ignoring this elementary fact.  


On February 23, 2006 2:42 PM, Anonymous Paul said...

"this bill builds on the 2001 act...unfortunately it hasn't been fit for purpose...", says Jim Murphy.

Well Jim, if you spent more time drafting legislation that worked, rather than that which merely sends "signals" you might not need to keep revisiting the same areas again and again with increasingly broadbrush measures that contain all the powers you might ever need, EVER IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD JUST IN CASE, because you haven't actually thought the problem through. If you stopped dragooning MPs through the lobbies to support, against all logic and reason, the latest piece of legislative pie in the sky dreamt up to solve the latest problem of your own making you wouldn't have so many chickens coming home to roost. And you wouldn't have this insane legislative timetable.
1. Think about what you want to achieve.
2. Spend the time to draft proper legislation.
3. Listen to informed criticism.
4. Be prepared to accept ammendments.
5. Sit back and have a rest knowing that you've passed effective legislation that won't need replacing in a year or two.

If your government couldn't get it right back in 2001 what makes you think you can get it right this time?  


On February 23, 2006 9:44 PM, Anonymous Charlie Whitaker said...

Justin, that's some good work. Especially on the select committee background grafting. But you knew that.

I heard Murphy on Today as well. As soon as any minister uses 'the real danger is ...' gambit, you know there's a truckload of bullshit pending. Cabinet Office. I just hate to think what it must be like to work there. I can't believe they're any nicer to each other than they are to us.  


On February 24, 2006 4:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...the law of unintended consequences....when your thirst for efficiency, or for at least the facade of efficiency, produces the same outcome as if you'd set out to be a bastard"

This has already been defined by the cousins over the water as the
Napolean-Clarke Law - "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice"  


On February 26, 2006 12:27 PM, Blogger Justin said...

Apologies to john whose comment I've deleted and reproduced here as the link he gave was screwing the site's bodged template:

John said: EU Serf youre quite wrong if you think the CBI dont know what they want out of this Bill.
Personally, if it had more concrete safeguards (i.e. Parliamentary scrutiny) then I would have less of a problem with it.

A good Clifford Chance briefing.  


On February 26, 2006 2:30 PM, Blogger Justin said...

And Murky:

Linked to you today from.

(By the way, the right sidebar appears right over the text when this page is viewed in firefox)  


On March 23, 2006 2:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim Murphy is a draft dodging Labour apparatchik who has never done a days real work in his life - so what would he know about making business more competitive?
I've had the misfortune to encounter him every four years since 1997 - hopefully we'll get him and the rest of these corrupt Blairite drones out the next time.  


Post a Comment




Links to this post:

Create a Link


Home