A number of news reports have interested me during the course of the past two or three days, the first of which appeared in The Sunday Times (26^th February 2006.)

It appears that by virtue of laws enacted to prevent discrimination against gays, gay clubs will be forced to allow entry to heterosexuals.  That a fairly drafted piece of anti-discrimination legislation should achieve this result does not surprise me.  What does surprise is that gays did not see it coming.  Well drafted fair laws that seek to achieve social justice do just that, they prohibit any discrimination within their ambit.  Thus heterosexuals who wish to visit good bars and clubs that happen to be gay, will be able to do so.  Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, you might say.

The second article, which is found in The Times (27^th February 2006) reports comments purportedly made by Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, on Sunday morning television (ITV – Jonathan Dimbleby’s programme) the previous day.  He took the view that Muslims had to accept free speech and that those who wished to live under Sharia Law had the option of leaving the country.  I cannot say that my politics are the same as those of Mr Phillips, but ever since I first saw him on The London Programme in the early eighties, I have always listened to what he has had to say.  It was refreshing to hear his comments, which comprise no more than reasonable, common sense.  However, I did have to reflect that such is the state of our current politically correctness, these comments could not have been made by a white Englishman, without having caused a great furore.

The last report, by Greg Hurst (accompanied by a leading article) also appeared in The Times (27^th February 2006) and related to, amongst other things, the asking of written questions by MPs.  We are advised that the cost of providing an answer to each question amounts to £138.00.  We are further advised that a lot of silly written questions are asked, mostly by new MPs trying to “get known” (largely, I understand, by way of the dastardly www.TheyWorkForYou.com.) 

Perhaps I am wrong, but I had the distinct impression that The Times considered this sort of thing a Bad Thing.  Leaving aside the question of how the “£138.00 per question” cost is calculated[1], the written question has always been an important method of extracting information from Government, so what’s the beef?  If Government actually gave straight, honest answers every time, then perhaps some of the “cost” would be saved.  The sort of people who register for information on the TheyWorkForYou site are not likely to be impressed by the asking of silly questions anyway, so the odd MP (or researcher) who drafts such questions will shoot himself in the foot.  In any event, the answers are sometimes far more silly than the question ever knew how to be, particularly when the question was very serious and worthy in the first place, which the majority of them are.

1. Why does the Bill change the current procedures for the enactment into our law of EU legislation? 

2. What guarantees are there that the Bill could not be used to bring in the EU Constitution by the back door? 

3. If the Bill is just a simplifying measure for deregulation, why does it contain no requirement for any orders to actually reduce the amounts of red tape and regulation? 

4. Why does the Bill give the power to create new law, including new criminal offences, to the Law Commissions, which are unelected quangos appointed by Ministers? 

5. If the Law Commissions are supposed to be staffed by impartial technical experts, why are Ministers taking the power to amend the recommendations of the Law Commissions before they are fast-tracked into legislation? 

6. Why do protections in the Bill against new laws to permit forcible entry, search, seizure or compelling people to give evidence not apply to reforms recommended by the unelected Law Commissions appointed by Ministers? 

7. If the Bill allows Ministers to “amend, repeal or replace legislation in any way that an Act might”, does this not give them an unlimited power to ignore a democratic Parliament and legislate by decree? 

8. If the Bill is so sensible, why has Parliament used a different way of making laws for 700 years? 

9. If the Bill is meant to retain Parliament’s ability to scrutinise regulations and regulators, why does it not contain a provision for automatic sunset clauses in orders issued under the Bill? 

10. If the Bill gives Ministers powers to charge fees by decree, is that not a charter to bring in unlimited stealth taxes? 

11. As the Bill permits an order to be made by a Minister under the Bill provided its effect is “proportionate” to his “policy objective”, since when in our history as a democratic country has a Government Minister’s “policy objective” directly received the force of law? 

12. What guarantees are there that the Bill could not be used to bring in ID Cards by the back door? 

13. Why does the Bill give the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly a veto over Ministers’ power to change the law which it denies to English MPs?

For more “stuff” about this Bill,  see Right Links