Skip to main content

Finance (No 2) Bill - creates constitutional conflict

One of the problems with the British Constitutional system is that we don't have a clear constitutional system.

Although a written constitution would help, I do not think it is necessary to go that far. It would, however, help to have some clear understanding as to what are and what are not constitutional pieces of legislation.

The Magna Carta started the ball rolling in 1215.

Another early clear one of these is Revocatio Novarum Ordinationum which in 1322 made it clear that for statutes to have force they needed to go through both houses of parliament and be signed off by the monarch.

The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 obviously changed that.

The Act of Union, Scotland Act 1998 and Government of Wales Act are also material. The Reform Acts are also constitutional.

The Bill of Rights (1688/1689) established a number of important principles although more minor legislation such as the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 and Parliamentary Privilege Act 1770 modified that.

The 1972 European Communities Act and the 1998 Human Rights Act are also constututional. What this means is that they cannot be repealed implicitly, but need to be repealed explicitly.

The Finance (No 2) Bill in essence (in clause 174) repeals all of them explicitly when it comes to statutory instruments that deal with international tax collection.

What the UK does need to do is to establish a political consensus as to what are constitutional statutes and the process whereby they might be changed. I don't think there is an intention to repeal them by mistake. However, the legislation looked at in committee today clearly creates the possibility that statutory instruments can repeal them where there is a conflict of laws.

Pepper v Hart will not protect people from that as the Paymaster General did not handle this issue properly and the face of the bill is quite clear and unambiguous.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…