United Kingdom Law/Great Repeal Bill 2008
The Great Repeal Bill was a proposed bill from 2007 onwards, intended to abolish many laws and regulations hampering individual freedoms, society, and businesses in the United Kingdom It was similar to the proposed bill to remove European Union laws after Brexit. Members of the public can add to the list of laws and rules to be repealed in the draft of the Bill below. You are also highly encouraged to join the debate about why certain legislation should be included (or excluded) from a Great Repeal Bill.
This experiment in direct democracy allows ordinary citizens to have a direct say in drafting of legislation and is believed to be the first of its kind Since several of the bodies and some of th regulations listed have been earmarked for abolition a decision is needed on whether to remove these from the wiki or to highlight them as successes. Hundreds of quangos will be axed, merged or reformed as part of a major shake-up of public sector organisations announced on Thursday.
About the Bill[edit | edit source]
First proposed by Douglas Carswell and Daniel Hannan in their book, The Plan: 12 months to renew Britain, the Great Repeal Bill is as much an effort in deregulation as it is an initiative in open politics and a move towards direct democracy. The Labour party and the TUC will ensure that all existing rights and protections are maintained and will take the necessary actions to prevent Conservatives from watering down or scrapping any of these hard won rights and protections. There is currently no right of popular initiative in Britain to ensure that popular legislative measures are debated and voted on in the British Parliament. Nor is there at this time a right of referendum. However, working with the political system as it is today, we hope to present to Parliament the draft Bill as a Private Members Bill, or ultimately as a government Bill.
The Bill is to be drafted in collaboration with ordinary citizens drawing upon the collaborative approach a wiki editing model provides. This experimental approach hopes to provide insight into public opinion, examine if a case for popular legislative initiative using the wiki approach can be made, and provide a resource for public policy research. The initiative originally began on the blog site ConservativeHome in June 2008.
A parallel effort is being made on a private, "guarded" wiki at ourlaw.wikispaces.com. Part of the outcome that may be sought is to see the difference between the results of an open vs. closed environment. Both wikis are licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0, so content may be ported in either direction where appropriate.
Contributing[edit | edit source]
Please be specific when adding suggestions for laws to scrap (not new laws, the clue lies in the title - Great Repeal Bill). The table headings for each section is indicative of what suggestions should include:
- Clause - A numbering which should be incremented if adding a new proposal.
- Legislation - Ideally the short title and year for specific Primary legislation (typically the Act of Parliament), or title, year and sequence number for secondary legislation (typically Statutory Instruments or Regulations) which contains the laws, regulations or provisions to be repealed. If you are able to assist by clarifying the title in existing proposals, please do so.
- Extent of repeal - The specific section or provisions of the law that should be repealed. If you are able to assist other contributors by making explicit the specific section a proposal refers to, please do so.
- Reasoning - A brief explanation or justification as to why the bill should be concerned with repealing the law.
Maintenance[edit | edit source]
Because this draft Bill is intended to be a working document, proposals should be moved to United Kingdom Law/Great Repeal Bill 2008/Old if they are out of date by reason of the legislation they propose for repeal having been repealed.
Title and words of enactment[edit | edit source]
An Act to repeal Acts of Parliament and secondary legislation that are detrimental to the quality of life and freedom of British citizens to choose how they wish to live their lives; and for connected purposes.
Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—
Extent, commencement, transitional provision and short title[edit | edit source]
(1) This Act extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
(2) An amendment or repeal contained in this Act has the same extent as the Act or instrument or relevant part of the Act or instrument to which the amendment or repeal relates (ignoring extent by virtue of an Order in Council).
(3) This Act comes into force at the end of the period of six months beginning from the date of Royal Assent. (This provision will give time for public and private sector organisations to adjust to the many reforms in this Act)
(4) A Minister of the Crown, or two or more Ministers of the Crown acting jointly, may by order make transitional, transitory or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of any provision of this Act.
(5) An order under subsection (4) is to be made by statutory instrument.
(6) This Act may be cited as the Great Repeal Act 2010.
Applicability to devolved assemblies[edit | edit source]
This Act shall neither add to nor subtract from the devolved powers of the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Business deregulation[edit | edit source]TimC 15:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
|Clause||Legislation||Extent of repeal||Reasoning|
|1.||Employment Act 2002|
Dispute Resolution Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/752) 
|Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 2|
Paragraphs 6 and 9 of Schedule 2
|These sections contain laws which burden employees and entrepreneurs.
Many things are burdensome to business however that is not alone sufficient reason to repeal them, it requires some analysis of why the costs outweigh the benefits.
|2.||Weights and Measures Act 1985|
Weights and Measures (Packaged Goods) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/659)
|Relevant sections, including various secondary legislation||This Act requires retailers to use certain weights and measurements
I disagree about revocation. There has been regulation since the Magna Carta to ensure buyers and sellers are trading on equal terms.
Having an internationally traceable system of weighing and measuring for trade use is a requirement of WTO membership, it needs simplification and more deregulation, not outright repeal. Imperial Measurements can be made traceable to international metric standards and used quite legally in the UK subject to appropraite legislation. In fact 'imperial' does not exist, it is all defined by metric standards. Just because something says it weighs a 'kilogram' doesn't mean that it does. The only thing in the world that actually weighs a kilogram is the primary standard kilogram in Paris, all mass measurements need to be traceable back to it to have any intergrity.
|3.||Housing Act 2004||Part 5 (currently suspended by The Home Information Pack (Suspension) Order 2010)||This Act requires Home Information Packs to be used. The effect is to impose an additional cost on house purchasers and a VAT revenue for the state. The EU requirement for an energy survey could be met without the overhead of a full HIP.
Disagree - Home Information Packs need reforming, to include surveys. They have brought down the cost of searches dramatically and speeded up process. Contributing to Economy, but are ineffective and require full review and change.Agree - From my personal experience selling my home no-one has ever asked to look at the HIP or shown any interest in it. In addition when my home failed to sell I had to resort to renting it, and having rented it for a year my HIP is now invalid. When the rental ended I wanted to put it back on the market for both sale and rental but discovered I would end up paying for the HIP again if I want to market it...and again every time the rental ended if more than a year had passed. Essentially anyone not doing the standard "put it on the market, wait for it to sell, sell" ends up paying for one potentially several times.
|4.||European Works Council Directive (94/45/EC)|
European Social Chapter
|The entire Directive||These burden businesses.|
An opinion by a business that a law is a burden is not sufficient to make that law wrong. The employee must often be empowered to avoid the business taking advantage of the relationship. The requirement should not be to remove a burden, but to keep it proportional to the problem and appropriate to the circumstances.
|5.||Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/1551) and 2002 (SI 2002/2035)||The entire Regulations||These contain laws which make it less likely that businesses are able to hire part-time workers. In the statutory instrument of 2002,the then Sec of State extendedTimC 14:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC) the categories of people to whom these regulations apply by removing an exemption. (this is presumably a sop to union dislike of contract labour). It is possible that simply reinstating the missing paragraphs by statutory instrument would meet the objective.
Abolition should be opposed as it would place an unreasonable competitive brake on all Businesses carried out with Part Time Workers. It is easier to have no contract but that reduces all Markets to the whims of the Employer and so places a burden onto the Employer to be permanently exercising active control with consequent inefficiencies.
|6.||The Companies Act 1985 (Operating and Financial Review and Directors' Report etc.) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/1011) ||The entire Regulations||Specify what aspect of the regulations you find objectionable. Is it the environmental audit or the fact that companies have to mke an annual report? Just naming the regulations will not do.|
|7.||Money Laundering Regulations and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 2007 and 2009||SI 2001/1819|
|This Law makes you liable if your client, without your knowledge, committs a crime. You can loose everything you own before charge and without a fair trial. This Law has destroyed the Presumption of Innocence and allows the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service to punish the innocent before charge and before trial. It allows Police to seize every moveable item of value from a business person before charge and further allows the Crown Prosecution Service to freeze all assets before charge and before trial. It brings forward the spectre of a Police State to Britain|
|8.||Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974||Sections of the secondary legislations enacted over the past decade.||Costs people 20 times more money to enforce than people get paid for enforcing it . citing "a 75-country study found that regulations usually cost a country twenty times more than they cost the government (see publications by Djankov,
Laporta, Silanes and Shleifer)." page 59 of http://www.policynetwork.net/uploaded/pdf/Habits_of_Highly_Effective_Countries%20_Lessons_for_SA.pdf
Agree: Have worked in the industry. The Act as it currently stands entails far too much bureaucracy and form-filling, wasting time and resources. Also facilitates the creation of vested interests through health and safety training companies, many of whom offer astonishingly basic and ill-informed courses for large sums of money. As mentioned above, elements of it are anachronistic.
Disagree: This is a hobby-horse Repeal of legislation that predates the EEC let alone the EU. The inability of poor business practice to support health and provide safety in the workplace dates to 1802. The Great Repeal Bill will have a lot of good work to do without bogging it down in abolishing Victorian Legislation just because Businesses refuse to take personal responsibility for safety seriously.Arguing the minutiae of office safety is an exercise in office politics that should be kept away from the serious business of Legislation.
|9.||Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) ||See reasons||Amend the order by removing references to all premises where people sleep: ie hotels, boarding houses, hostels, communal parts of dwellings, holiday lets, chalets, holiday camps and the like. Replace these sections by reinstating such parts of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 as are necessary to reimpose the requirements of the Fire Precautions (Hotels and Boarding Houses) Order 1972 and strengthen this to include the above mentioned premises subject to an exemption for single building holiday lets which do not provide accommodation for fewer than five persons.- Do you mean 'do not provide accommodation for MORE than five persons?TimC 15:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)|
Finance Act 2000 (IR35)|
Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003
Social Security Contributions (Intermediaries) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/727)
|The relevant sections||Costs small businesses time and money, adds extra charges for contractors, and also pushed many offshore. It has raised a mere £9.2m over 6 years  and at most raised 35 million. |
|11.||Financial Services and Markets Act 2000||The entire Act||We all know that it has failed. It was only brought in because the predecessor legislation, the Financial Services Act 1986, although working well, had been introduced by the previous Conservative government. Bring it back!|
|12.||Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977||The entire Act||Prevents personal injury liability disclaimers from being legally binding.|
Disagree: The law has traditionally said that liability for death and injury is too serious to be excluded "as a norm". The aim of this clause is that you cannot just point to the contract and say "we're not liable even if negligent" if your mistake causes death or injury. This is in effect a "public policy" issue; it's probably a good thing that it's prevented from exclusion and disclaimer.
|13.||Town and Country Planning Act 1947||The entire Act and its subsequent amendments||Increases housing costs which have gone up 4 times faster than the RPI over the last century (see #90) because planning drove up costs and prevents innovation. People are entitled to housing that is as good, modern, and inexpensive as the market can produce. National park rules should allow land there to stay undeveloped.Planning laws distort the market for land and lead to over investment by UK citizens in property at the expense of commerce. Agree: But, we need legislative protection of historic sites and areas of natural beauty that the above act is actually failing to provide.|
|14.||Income Tax Act 2007||The entire Act||Replace with a National Sales Tax on all non-essential items. Implemented on a local basis as well to encourage competition between different areas. People who spend more on non-essential items would pay more which is a fairer tax. This could vastly reduce national and local government revenue from a decrease in the tax rate. This may also attract foreigners to move to the UK which could increase tax collected. See the Fair Tax currently being debated in the U.S. for further insights.  
Disagree: Would drive down government revenue to a degree that is unsustainable considering the amount of current government spending commitments. If it happens, it needs to occur in a government prepared to dramatically reduce the responsibilities and burdens on the state, which is unlikely. Also believe indirect taxation such as this will be unpopular, as it creates the impression that things are more expensive than they in fact are.Poorer people spend a far greater proportion of their income on goods, rather than savings, investments, mortgages, therefore this is a recessive tax. Having a local tax will mean much lower government income in poorer area, with money going to already relatively wealthy areas. Also there is disagreement about what is 'non-essential', it would inevitably creep on to essentials.
|15.||Climate Change Act 2008||The entire Act||Costs individual households and businesses billions of pounds when the UK is estimated to be responsible for only 2% of worldwide carbon emissions and man made climate change is only a hypothesis and not an established fact.
Absolute certainty is impossible in climatology as it is in everything else (up to and including mathematics). Nevertheless, the IPCC's last assessment report states: 'Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.'Disagree: Agree that certain clauses of the Act need revision and certain aspects of the government's approach to climate change need revision, but support the idea of reducing man's environmental impact in general, and reducing dependence on foreign sources of energy can only be a positive. Notion that Britain should not act because its impact is "only 2%" is not a good one, since it nevertheless still has such responsibilities, and should endeavor to set an example.
|16.||The Leasehold Reform Act 1967||The entire Act||Prevents people and businesses from having the right to recover possession of properties after expiration of a lease.|
|17.||Race Relations Amendment Act 2000||The entire Act||In creating a requirement to promote "race equality" and demonstrate that procedures to prevent racial discrimination are in place this Act transforms what ought to be matters of conscience into an exercise in burdensome bureaucracy. Has engendered among the ethnic majority both sometimes justifiable resentment and a feeling that anyone from outside their number succeeding in their chosen sphere is doing so only because of their minority status, which is quite often wholly unfair. Has created the atmosphere which allowed the Ali Dizaei debacle in the Metropolitan Police to take place and done nothing to promote feelings of pan-racial "community". Agree: Anachronistic act, much of what it tries to achieve was actually included in earlier Race Relations legislation. This sort of legislation more suited to 1950s and 60s when racial discrimination and racism still a factor in public life. Believe that most people, including business owners, are enlightened enough that this act is no longer necessary. Those that still subscribe to racial doctrines and prejudices are typically not those in positions to discriminate, but are thugs and gangs.|
|18.||Race Relations Act 1976||The entire Act||Overrode the eminently sensible Race Relations Act 1965 which confined itself solely to the public sphere more or less in its entirety. The 1976 act exacerbates, rather than mitigates, racial tensions in society|
|19.||Race Relations Act 1968||The entire Act||Intrudes unacceptably into areas which are more properly matters for personal conscience and public opprobrium to deal with. Actually damaged race relations in the United Kingdom in a way the far milder and more appropriate Race Relations Act 1965 did not in that it encouraged members of ethnic minorities who might previously have only suspected prejudicial treatment to band together into "communities" and go hunting for it, setting themselves against the native (for lack of a better term) population. Separation from the wider community was incentivised as unintegrated "communities" regarded as homogenous by outsiders became better able to campaign for preferential treatment and increased "group rights" than the individual who regarded himself as British first. As well as ghettoising ethnic minorities, all this has an equally unwelcome effect on member of the ethnic minority, who have been taught to resent and fear (particulary with regard to potential litigation) members of ethnic minorities even where their history in Britain goes back three or four generations. Disagree: With the notion that it encourages 'ghettoisation'. Believe this is a broader failure of multiculturalism and the collapse of British self-confidence following the 1950s than something that can be associated with this particular Act. This Act still valuable as a safeguard for race relations.|
|20.||Insolvency Act 1986||S214||Section 214 of the act creates personal liability for a company director in respect of wrongful trading. It is suggested that the creation of such liability in instances described by the section often results in small business directors being held personally liable for honest mistakes often to the extent of causing personal bankruptcy. The law against fraud and deliberate wrongdoing must be a harsh deterrent, however, S214 deals not with fraud but instead creates an onerous burden of expectation on the average entrepeneur's ability to predict the future and in doing so fosters a business culture of risk aversion and premature liqudation of potentially viable businesses.|
|21.||Digital Economy Act 2010||S3-21,42,47(3)(a)||This Act was rushed through Parliament during the wash-up period before the 2010 General Election and was not properly debated and analysed. Private companies/organisations should never have the right to bar/disconnect someone from anything. This should be a matter for the courts, and not industry. Also, ISPs should not have to police the internet when they are merely carriers of data, which privacy laws prohibit them from accessing. This clause repeals the parts of the Act that deal with this issue. See also the Communications Act 2003 under the consequential amendments section.|
Disagree - private companies should certainly have the right to terminate or suspend contracts with their customers, subject to the terms of those contracts. Currently most ISPs' Terms of Service already state that use of their networks for copyright infringement is forbidden, and their contracts also already contain clauses allowing them to terminate or suspend services for ToS violations. The notion that for some reason the courts should be required in this decision is one promulgated by pro-piracy ISPs who don't want to terminate or suspend their customers and know that most complaints come from entities outside the legal jurisdiction that covers them, so demanding court orders will usually result in the complaint going away.
Further, the Digital Economy Bill does not say that customers will be cut-off. It says that ISPs will have to send notices to their subscribers if they are repeatedly notified of copyright infringement, that they will be required to keep track of who they have notified and how many times, and that copyright holders will be able to request anonymised information from ISPs relating to the customers who have been sent the largest number of notifications. There is nothing wrong with the ISP coming to a view as to whether alleged infringement is genuine or not, in the same way that there is nothing wrong with someone telling someone else off for dropping litter on the street. The courts only need to be involved if there is a dispute, and in that situation it should be the contract between ISP and customer that is the basis for litigation.Finally, I'll add that I don't think the anti-piracy part of the Digital Economy Bill will work, but I also don't think it's some kind of unjustifiable infringement of ISPs' customers' rights. For one thing, one ISP barring them doesn't mean the whole Internet is inaccessible - there are many ISPs, and there are always public terminals in libraries, internet cafés and other public places that they can use. Banning them completely from the Internet is an entirely different matter and would, of course, require an injunction from a court, but that is not what the Digital Economy Bill proposes, even in the case that the Secretary of State directs Ofcom to take further steps to curb piracy.
|22.||Finance Act 2008||S58(4)||This section of the 2008 Finance Act is an apparently innocuous piece of legislation that closes a tax loophole in the Dual Taxation Treaty between the UK and the Isle of Man. The referenced clause however reads : "(4) The amendments made by subsections (1) to (3) are treated as always having had effect." This effectively renders the closure retrospective, making income that was not previously taxable subject to full income tax. This is unprecendented and, as well as being widely condemned by such bodies as the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Joint Committee of Human Rights, exposes several thousand freelance workers to huge tax demands. Many of these people will be made bankrupt by this clause, most of them ordinary people with families who risk losing their homes. During the committee stage of the Finance Act, both the Lib Dems and Conservatives opposed the retrospective element of this bill, tabling amendments to close the loophole but with only prospective effect. These amendments were only defeated by Labour forcing the clause through by exercising their committee majority. Effects are already being felt in parts of UK arts & heritage where it is apparent that some significant donors have left the country.|
|23.||Police Act 1997||Part V||This legislation created the Criminal Records Bureau. It cannot and does not provide any guarantees about whether people will actually be safe around children, but it has helped to create an atmosphere of suspicion. Over 2000 people have found themselves wrongly labeled as criminals by and and the result of this legislation has been to create a shortage of adult volunteers. In addition to this the requirement for CRB checks which have effectively become a tax on volunteering Actually it is not so much a tax on volunteering as a source of income for the company running the CRB check system, see http://www.capitarvs.co.uk/TimC 08:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)|
|24.||Sunday Trading Act 1994||The relevant sections||There are good social reasons for restricting the number of hours or days a person should work, but it is not the place of the government to mandate a given day of the week for it. (Jewish shops? Muslim shops? Shop workers of no strong religious belief?) To the extent this protects shop workers from abuse, update employment law to ensure a shop worker's employment must allow for a regular one day a week off for (or in lieu of) religious belief. To the extent it protects the British culture, the established religion, or any other social structure, it is clear that the population as a whole don't feel that forcing shops to close on a given day is an issue worthy of enforcement in this day and age. Its value seems to be more symbolic in a country where most people are happy to drive, shop, or do DIY on a Sunday - it's almost a reminder of something. But symbolics make poor legislation. Disagree: Background and culture of this country still Christian. Whether majority of people go to church every week is irrelevant. The fact is that Sunday is culturally a day of rest and leisure, and this should be maintained. Could lead to abuse of low-income workers (in shops, etc) if repealed.|
|25.||Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended by The Copyright (Computer Programs) Regulations 1992)||S18 - "except that in relation to [..] computer programs the restricted act of issuing copies to the public includes any rental of copies to the public"||Currently, renting out software to customers is illegal unless you have permission of the rights holder. For "normal" software (e.g. operating systems, computer games, office software), this law is acceptable. The problem is, is that nearly every electronic device has software in it (cars, microwaves). This outlaws car rental, computer rental/leasing (even with proper operating system licenses, as the "bare-metal" computer does have a BIOS which can't be removed), hotels with TVs in the rooms, landlords who provide the use of a microwave etc. In hardware, the "software" is usually "firmware", however in the EU Computer Programs Directive (91/250/EEC) which our law is based upon, it does say that "the term 'computer program` shall include programs in any form, including those which are incorporated into hardware". This undermines our right to rent out hardware that we own. It is infeasable to ask every manufacturer of every single electronic device permission to rent/lease hardware, just because it contains a small amount of software. The aforementioned words from Section 18 of the Act should be removed, and replaced with something that excludes programs built into hardware. Nicely argued example of a poorly drafted law.|
|26.||UK Strategic Export Control Lists (Dual-Use Items)||Annex I Section 5 Part 2 ("Information Security")||The internet is an international tool that is nearly impossible to regulate. Encryption is a very important element in the backbone of the internet, and should not be controled by governments. Nearly every single computer server or desktop uses encryption, including simple email clients. With encryption technologies, the internet just woudn't work for anything important. Besides the fact that encryption is ubiquitous and essential, freedom of speech and privacy laws entitle the public to keeping private traffic secure. The aforementioned part of the Export Control List should be removed, as in today's connected digital world, encryption should not be classed as "Dual-Use". We don't call "pens and pencils" dual-use items, even though the military can use them, because pens and pencils are everywhere. This is the same as encryption - the world uses it in nearly every element of computing freely, yet unenforcable laws try to restrict it. Infact, the only way for businesses to suceed in today's connected digital world, is to remain ignorrant of the aforemented part, as men and women who take a laptop abroad on holiday with them become subject to the part (All laptops have encryption technologies built into them in some form). Over the years, encryption is slowly becoming deregulated, but lets strike its regulation off from the books completely, as in today's digital world, we need encryption for simple domestic and business purposes.|
|27.||The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003||S24 (This amends Section 296 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988)||This section was designed to protect circumvention of copy controls, such as DRM to prevent the illegal copying of a DVD. In principle, this is good, however the Section is badly written and its scope extends to areas greater than orignally intended. An example would be if someone were to buy a electronic device, which came with pre-loaded software. That person may want to change the software on the device. Since he owns the device, one would assume that he is able to do this, however the aformentioned section would prevent this, as he would have to "circumvent a technical measure" since most manufactures try to prevent people from removing pre-loaded software due to warranty/support issues. The Section should be re-written to narrow its scope to something like "circumvention of DRM controls directly related to the prevention of piracy". We need our freedom to do what we wish with hardware that we own. We should be allowed to change software on electronic devices if we so wish. HTC "forbid" people to remove the software on their phones, and replace it with custom software; even though "piracy" is not involved here, this badly written section gives HTC the right to "forbid" people from removing their software. To sum up, am I asking government to restore the freedom to allow people to "remove" or "replace" software on hardware, and to forbid manufacturers from restricting people from doing such acts.|
|28.||Consumer Credit Act 2006||S15 (this section repeals sub-sections 127(3-5) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974)||Consumer lending institutions should know the Law and follow it if they decide to rely on the Law to enforce their consumer credit agreements Disagree- Too much of a burden placed on creditors; also, would give rise to defences in the realm of "ignorance of the law is no defence"|
Local government deregulation[edit | edit source]
|Clause||Legislation||Extent of repeal||Reasoning|
|1.||Local Government Act 1999||The entire Act||This Act imposed on local authorities rules which subject locally elected decision makers to official scrutiny by officials rather than voters.|
|2.||Local Government Act 2000||Part III and Schedule 4||This Act established a Standards Boards to oversee the conduct of locally elected councillors. Comment: Schedule 4 is prospectively repealed by paragraph 53 of Schedule 4 to, and Part 5 of Schedule 25 to, the Localism Act 2011.|
|4.||Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004||Section 39||This Act requires planning decisions to be taken with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.|
Civic deregulation[edit | edit source]
|Clause||Legislation||Extent of repeal||Reasoning||Debate|
|2.||Hunting Act 2004||The entire Act||The Act is unclear , it has been declared unenforceable in court  and it was introduced not for policy reasons but to placate government backbenchers.||Debate|
|2.||Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000||Section 4|
|3.||The Firearms Act (Amendment) (No. 1 & 2) Act 1997 (The Pistol Ban)||The entire Act||This was an emotionally derived piece of legislation driven by a tabloid media campaign, and which overruled the recommendations of the government's own inquiry (which concluded that the Dunblane shootings were down to a failure of Policing and law enforcement). To that end it was recommended that firearms law required no new restrictions. This poorly-thought out, knee-jerk response to a single incident currently prevents a lawful, harmless form of recreation and has had no effect in curtailing firearms related crime , as it only provided powers to remove firearms from lawful, private possession (which criminals by definition will ignore). In 12 years no other Western nation has followed the UK's "shining example" suggesting that the UK is too restrictive, not the other way around. Infact, the absurdity of these laws means our own Olympic pistol team have to go to France in order to train due to the barrel and overall length of firearms allowed on a sec.1 firearms certificate. A criminal who by nature does not follow these restrictions can simply use a hacksaw to bypass this, demonstrating the futility of this legislation. Repealing this amendment would allow licenced shooters to use both fullbore and .22 rimfire pistols under the same strict conditions as other sec.1 firearms.|
|4.||Dangerous Dogs Act 1989||The entire Act||Utterly judgemental piece of legislation that stereotypes dogs rather than treating each as an individual. Infringement of freedoms in that one cannot keep a perfectly safe dog simply because of its breed.
Disagree: Extend its scope to ban all private ownership and keeping of dogs of any breed, which are inherently aggressive and dangerous creatures of unrivalled barbarity and have no place in civilised society. They kill at least one child in the UK every year, usually more. Treating them as individuals is like treating some murderers as if they were benign and adorable beings whom we should take into our homes and allow to access local children on the off-chance that they might not savage them to death on that particular day.
Disagree: Regulation of dog ownership, and pet ownership in general, should be increased not reduced. Animal cruelty on the increase, and spate of recent dangerous dog attacks show that not everyone can be trusted to care for dogs in a way that is suitable for themselves, the dogs, and society. However, believe above comment is hyperbolic and too emotionally charged.
|5.||Football Spectators Act 1989||The entire Act||Reasons?
Disagree: Cannot, under any circumstances, go back to the 1980s days of football hooliganism.
|6.||Police Act 1997||Part 5 (and subsequent requirements)||Relates to the establishment of the Criminal Records Bureau, and the requirements for voluntary groups and organisations to use it.|
|7.||Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 which established the Independent Safeguarding Authority||The entire Act||This is already included in another section. Propose dropping it from here.|
|8.||Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000||Sections 60 to 62 .||This Act imposed obligations on local highway authorities to involve themselves in long established rights of way.|
|9.||Charities Act 2006||Part 1||This Act redefined the definition of charity that had existed satisfactorily since 1661. It was mainly introduced to attack 'public schools' which claim tax benefit for the chaitable purpose of providing education.|
|10.||Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006||The entire Act||This Act of the Parliament created an offence in England and Wales of inciting hatred against a person on the grounds of their religion. However, it also creates an issue for people wishing to criticize aspects of religion who now cannot do so without fear of possibly committing this offence. This act should be repealed on the grounds that it breaches the principles of free speech.
Agree: Majority of religious attacks are actually predicated on and motivated by racial hatred. Racial hatred already covered by Crime and Disorder Act below.
|11.||Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008||Part 5, Section 63 and related clauses||This makes the possession of 'extreme' types of 'pornography' a criminal offence, regardless of the reason for that possession, and where the definition of 'pornography' is so sweeping as to amount to censorship, including images that can be created using entirely legal means and with fully consenting adult participants. Possession of images are criminalised whether or not participants consented, and it applies to fictional and staged acts. It covers entirely private material that is not published. BBFC classified works are exempt, yet a clip from such a film can still be illegal.
Noteworthy, the consultation on this was 61% against stronger laws and only 36% in favour, including strong representations against it from a wide range of bodies and organisations speaking on sexual matters (Liberty, Backlash etc). A Rapid Evidence Assessment purporting to give the law an academic basis, was deemed by academics to be ""extremely poor, based on contested findings and accumulated results... one-sided and simply ignores the considerable research tradition into "extreme" (be they violent or sexually explicit) materials..." - a statement signed by some 40 academics. Legal opinion from QC suggests the concept is itself flawed. Prosecutions subsequently have been desultory, and included a humour spoof of Tony the Tiger having sex and preferring it to Frosties. Even in the case which prompted the law, the guilty party had begun experimenting with such fetishes and had "murderous thoughts" years before viewing "extreme" pornography.
Comment: We don't need this law. As well as criminalising the recording of one's own legal actions, the recording of ones friends or partners' legal actions, and the possession of material produced by friends of their legal actions, there's considerable research that questions the supposed connection in the first place.
Agree: The Act was motivated by a misguided view of what causes sexual violence. More efforts should be made to prevent children watching pornography, and treating mentally-ill adults who are sensitive to influence from extreme pornography, not on criminalising adults. This Act is a cover for a societal failure to deal with the implications of widely available pornography and the internet.
|12.||Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008||Proposed amendments||Proposed amendments by MPs and Lords: Clause 63, Clause 113, 114, 115, Amendments 3-10, and 179). Possible amendments from Backlash.|
|13.||The Firearms Act 1968||Non-lethal weapons - Section 5(1)(b) any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid gas or other thing||A variety of non lethal self-defence devices are included in the list of prohibited weapons, alongside machine guns and rocket launchers. Both pepper spray and electronic stun guns offer an excellent and reliable means of protecting oneself against an attack. The prohibition of these devices not only strips away a perfectly legitimate means of self-defence benefited from across most of Europe (Only 7 out of 27 EU states prohibited self-defence sprays), but unnecessarily criminalizes those who decide to take responsibility for their own protection by carrying said devices. What good is the right to defend yourself when you have no effective means to do so?|
|14.||Crime and Disorder Act 1998||This Act introduced ASBOs and "racially aggravated offences", thus creating different classes of victim and subverting the concept of equality before the law. It also provided for the abolition of judicial hanging for High Treason.|
|15.||Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005||Sections 132 - 138||These sections prohibit protest within 1km of Parliament, infriging the right to peaceful protest. |
|16.||Counter-Terrorism Act 2008||Section 58A and Section 76 -delete item iii 'a constable' from Section 76||The photography of a police officer 'law'. An ill thought out law, that further allows police to harass citizens and individuals from taking photos.|
|17.||Terrorism Act 2006.||Relevant Sections||The ability of the police to hold people for 28 days without charge under anti-terrorism legislation.I disagree- this seems an appropriate period of detention for suspected terrorists.|
|18.||Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005||Section 3||The ability of the Home Secretary to place control orders upon people.This ineffective measure would not be required if the adherance to the 'Human rights act' was repealed.|
|19.||Police Reform Act 2002.||Relevant sections||This law among other things has given the ability for 'respected' community figures such as Nightclub Bouncers, Parking Attendants et al. to issue on-the-spot fines for anti-social behaviour. They also have access to the PNC (Police National Computer). It also allows for seizure of vehicles (S.59) despite the 1689 Bill of Rights specifically outlawing forfeiture before conviction
Agree: This Act is useless without reform of the nightclub bouncer industry, which allows criminal groups to establish local monopolies and create covers for violence and drug dealing. Know this after 4 years working in the pub and club industry.
|20.||Civil Contingencies Act 2004||This Act is a primary piece of legislation, brought in to give greater consistency and to give assurances that the Civil Power can respond appropriately to incidents on the scale of 9/11 Bali bombings and Foot and Mouth 2001 and Fire strike and wide area flooding.
Part 1 of the Act requires Public bodies to co-operate, co-ordinate and prepare for civil emergencies in an intergrated and effective manner. It requires specific resources to be maintained in readiness, and responses practiced to ensure that the UK is able to respond effecitvely. Repealling this Act in its' entirety would dramatically reduce the effectiveness of principal responders to manage major emergncies for example 7th July 2005, Gloucester floods, Buncefield, Cockermouth floods Part 2 of the CCA 2004 Act relates to Emergency Powers being put in place in a time of civil emergency or unrest. For example a similar incident to that currently occuring in Bangladesh would require the implementation of the Emergency powers to ensure that the impact of the emergency, and the national resources required to assist the civil power could be brought in quickly - without the need to go through due process which takes time; and could affect the ability of the country to recover from an incident. etc
|21.||The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment) Order 2008||The entire Order||Inhibits people from pursuing their peaceful hobbies in order to combat a non-existant threat. The Home Office claimed in enacting the order that a consultation had demonstrated strong support for their actions, despite the fact that 85% of those consulted had opposed a ban on replica swords and 56% had opposed a ban on any other weapons.|
|22.||Health Act 2006||Chapter 1||This is the legislation that prevents you smoking in an enclosed public space or in the workplace, such as a restaurant or a company car. It is often claimed that the ban has had a huge negative impact on many pubs across the country, particularly since the recession began. It is however worth noting that the number of licensed premises in England and Wales has actually increased (by about 4%) since the introduction of the ban, while in Scotland (where a ban was introduced in 2005) the number of pubs itself has increased. An alternative, if somewhat unpractical, approach would be to allow individual pubs to regulate smoking perhaps by setting aside designated smoking and non-smoking areas. In any case the ban enjoys widespread support from the general public.||debate|
|23.||The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations||The regulation prevent discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the ground of sexual orientation. This could be seen as a violation of the principle of free association. This judgement could give ground to a repeal of the regulations preventing discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the ground of religious beliefs., and led to the closure of those adoption agencies (e.g. Catholic) unwilling to place children with same-sex couples. This was however denied by a recent judgement by Lord Justice John Grant McKenzie Laws in the case of a devoutly Christian marriage counsellor who went to the Court of Appeal in an attempt to overturn his sacking two years before after he refused to provide sexual advice for gay couples. Judge Law said that "religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence." He added that to use the law to protect "a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified."|
|24.||Arbitration Act 2006||Gives the judgements of Sharia courts recognition in law
...actually, it gives any civil arbitration method *agreed to by both parties* force in civil cases and equity only. Since the victim in criminal cases is the state, and the state has a duty to prosecute crimes under law, it cannot apply here.
|25.||Terrorism Act 2006||Sections 23 to 25||28 days detention without charge is too long. Disagree, this seems appropriate to allow authorities to investigate computer files etc.
Disagree: 28 days is reasonable amount, as discussed above. Parliament prevented 42 days as was requested by the Brown government, which was excessive and which was not based on any decent rationale.
|26.||Criminal Justice Act 2003||Section 7 and 306||14 days detention without charge is too long.|
|27.||Terrorism Act 2000||Section 13, Sections 44 to 47||Improve freedom for peaceful protest, remove power to stop and search without probable cause|
|28.||Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994||Sections 34 to 39 and 61 to 80||Re-introduce the right to silence|
|29.||Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990||The entire Act||It is owners who are best placed to look after their property. This Act enables councils to prosecute people for crimes committed by previous owners and to be jailed for that.|
|30.||Criminal Justice Act 2003||Part 10 and Schedule 5||This section of the Act removes the ancient right of (freedom from) double jeopardy and so should itself be removed.||Debate|
|31.||Licensing Act 2003||The entire Act||This Act permits extended opening hours of licensed premises in a misguided scheme to introduce perceived European drinking habits to the UK. Instead incidents of violence and public disorder have extended into the early morning and has dramatically declined the standard of life of those in around licensed locations. The law also imposes restrictions on live music and entertainment which have inadvertently increased costs and legal limitations on voluntary and small social organisations
. It also contains the absurd requirement that businesses that sell alcoholic drinks by mail order should have a premises licence for premises that customers never visit.
Agree: British drinking culture too ingrained to change in the foreseeable future.
|32.||Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994||Section 63 to 65||Prohibiting what people can do with their own land (as the Act states) is an infringement of their liberty to make use of their property. By giving the police the power to disperse any group (even if they have the land owners permission) this is an infringement of the right to free association.|
|33.||Reserve Forces Act 1996||Sections 54 to 57||This Act has allowed the use of Territorial Army soldiers as cut-price replacements for regular troops in peacekeeping operations overseas.Please state why you think this is a bad practice. |
|34.||Extradition Act 2003||The entire Act||Farewell, Gary McKinnon. An unpleasantly one-sided deal that discriminates against British subjects. The Americans have consistently declined to uphold their side of the bargain; the arrangement enjoys no reciprocity nor prospect of sameThe Act should therefore be abolished.
Agree: Hands too much power over British subjects to foreign powers.
|35.||Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and all amendments thereto, also withdrawal from all treaties relating to the control of drugs.||The entire Act||For interfering with peoples right to find happiness in their own way, for promulgating the myth that your body and person belong to the state, for weakening the public mind by nannying people instead of allowing them to shoulder their own responsibilities and make their own choices. Drug prohibition is extremely expensive (policing, customs, criminal justice, prisons), criminalises large segments of the population, makes quality control impossible and harm minimization difficult, makes criminals rich while driving addicts to crime by inflating prices, is hugely hypocritical with respect to the relative dangers of legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco (each of which result in more deaths annually than all illegal drugs combined), and deprives the government of tax revenue which could be spent on treatment - all while utterly and miserably failing in its primary purpose of preventing drug use. For example, the UK has higher rates of cannabis usage than the Holland, despite Dutch decriminalisation.
Disagree: Drug use is incompatible with the principles behind a capitalist, free society. Leads to lethargy, lack of work ethic, inhibits productivity and peoples' capacity to contribute to society. The amount of 'deaths' it causes is irrelevant. Drugs destroy lives in other ways. Prohibiting drugs does not, as said above, mean your body belongs to the "state", but recognises that an individuals' choices, actions and lifestyles are not made in isolation. Further, decriminalising drug use would only benefit middle-class teenagers who's parents care enough to get them to rehab, or at least to pay enough to cover up their drug-caused shortcomings. It would do nothing to help the millions of working-class poor who regularly use drugs, who are often from backgrounds that do not enable recovery, and from areas of economic hardship that only encourages drug-dealing and drug use as an alternative to real society. Decriminalising drug use would only encourage the atomisation of society and confirm the abandonment of large numbers of working class Britons to their fate to benefit the spoiled children of middle class professionals.
|36.||Drugs Act 2005||Section 21||Included as an "add-on" a worthless restriction on sale of natural psylocybin mushrooms, a low risk item with almost no social issues and less toxic than aspirin. This attracted exceptionally heavy criticism from the House of Commons Select Committee's inquiry for its lack of basis:
In a clinical sense, these are almost universally agreed to be non-addictive, not related to a crime increase, low or no potential for abuse, less toxic than asprin, and associated primarily with spiritual experience in clinically reported double-blind tests.
|37.||The Childrens Act 1989||The entire Act||This Act of introduced rights for children, without also conferring any responsibilities. It is probably the single biggest cause of social breakdown in Britain, since it has made it almost impossible for any adult to discipline or even criticise a child without fear of legal redress
. It also created the Child Support Agency (CSA), since dissolved. Repeal the entire act and then start over again, using our brains and experience of what happens when you give power to children and take it away from adults.
Agree: Children needs rules and discipline, an appreciation of authority and their duties to society and the nation. However, must be recognised that repealing this Act alone with not solve the problems of indiscipline. This can only be solved by measures to tackle family breakdown and lack of community cohesion.
|38.||The Childrens Act 2004||The entire Act||This Act amended the Childrens Act 1989, making matters worse.
An unintended consequence was to place more blame on local authorities for the failings of parents of children placed on the protection register, so that (especially after Baby P) they are exceptionally over-sensitive to potential risk and errors or accusations of incompetence. The result introduces bureaucracy, drives away or straitjackets competent staff, and bloats budget requirements at the expense of other more serious and front line responsibilities. Repeal and start again.
|39.||Coroners and Justice Act 2009 ||Section 62 and related clauses||These sections redefine an adult over the age of consent as a child, and it includes all images even if they were not of any real people (e.g. cartoons and CGI) and are purely imaginary. The law is far broader than simply images that would be intended for pedophiles - "child" is defined to include those appearing to be 17 or 18, as well as images of adults, where the "predominant impression conveyed" is of a person under the age of 18. As with Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (see above), BBFC classified works are exempt, but a clip from such a work can still be illegal. The definitions include the possibility of criminalising a cartoon image where a fully clothed 17 year old is shown in the background of a scene where adults are depicted having sex. The definitions could cover graphic novels such as Lost Girls and Watchmen. Mainstream TV such as South Park's Proper Condom Use depict cartoon scenes of children in sexual acts. The law was criticised in Committee debates by Conservative and Lib Dem MPs. Similar laws in other countries have resulted in people being convicted for joke cartoon images.|
|40.||Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006||Section 36 to 41||Inhibits people from pursuing their peaceful hobbies by imposing unreasonable restrictions on replica firearms, including airsoft guns used in paintball-esque games. Film makers and theater production groups also cannot acquire replica firearms without being officially recognized, curtailing small scale amateur productions.|
|41.||Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations (SI 2000 No 2699) ||The whole Regulations||Allows businesses and government departments to intercept personal communications on their networks without consent. This is now the practice of schools as well.|
|42.||Gambling Act 2005.||The entire Act||Reasons?|
|43.||The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988||The entire Act||This was a poorly-thought out, knee-jerk response to a single incident which currently prevents a lawful, harmless form of recreation from being enjoyed by law-abiding sportspeople in the UK. It has failed to curtail firearms related crime, which has risen exponentially since that time. Singling out particular types of firearm has no effect on murder rates or the criminal misuse of firearms in general. A bolt action rifle can cause as much harm as a self-loading centre-fire or pump action rifle. Banning these legitimate sporting rifles was for political show only.|
|44.||Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005||Section 110
|Section 110 - For the first time since 1829 this act has empowered any constable to arrest and detain any person without warrant for any offence, no matter how trivial. In all cases they may use reasonable force, may detain with handcuffs, and may require a DNA sample to be taken all of which is unjustified by the nature of the offences and could reduce the trust between the police and the public.
Also section 152 appears to override RTA 1988 Section 164(8) and is open to abuse. If you are unable to produce your drving license and counterpart immediately when stopped by the police, your vehicle can be seized.
|45.||The Criminal Justice Act 1988.||Section 139.||This provision imposes "a very significant limitation on the citizen's freedom".||Debateon an earlier version of this clause|
|46||Race Relations Amendment Act 2000||The entire Act||In creating a requirement to promote "race equality" and demonstrate that procedures to prevent racial discrimination are in place this Act transforms what ought to be matters of conscience into an exercise in burdensome bureaucracy. Has engendered among the ethnic majority both sometimes justifiable resentment and a feeling that anyone from outside their number succeeding in their chosen sphere is doing so only because of their minority status, which is quite often wholly unfair. Has created the atmosphere which allowed the Ali Dizaei debacle in the Metropolitan Police to take place and done nothing to promote feelings of pan-racial "community".|
|47.||Race Relations Act 1976||The entire Act||Overrode the eminently sensible Race Relations Act 1965 which confined itself solely to the public sphere more or less in its entirety, and established a quango which positively thrives - indeed depends - upon interracial malcontent and stirring up suspicions of an omnipresent racism in the shape of the Commission for Racial Equality.|
|48||Race Relations Act 1968||The entire Act||Intrudes unacceptably into areas which are more properly matters for personal conscience and public opprobrium to deal with. Actually damaged race relations in the United Kingdom in a way the far milder and more appropriate Race Relations Act 1965 did not in that it encouraged members of ethnic minorities who might previously have only suspected prejudicial treatment to band together into "communities" and go hunting for it, setting themselves against the native (for lack of a better term) population. Separation from the wider community was incentivised as unintegrated "communities" regarded as homogenous by outsiders became better able to campaign for preferential treatment and increased "group rights" than the individual who regards himself as simply British. As well as ghettoising ethnic minorities, all this has an equally unwelcome effect on members of the majority poplation, who have been taught to resent and fear (particulary as regards potential litigation) members of ethnic minorities even where their history in Britain goes back three or four generations.|
|49.||Occupier's Liability Act 1984||The entire Act||Places unfair burden upon householders by making them liable for injury suffered by tresspassers on their property, leading to the famous case of a burglar who broke his leg falling through floorboards and successfully sued
. Previous legislation more than adequately protected children, legitimate callers or people straying onto property by accident. This statute serves no useful purpose other than to increase public perception of the unfairness of the legal system.
Disagree — OLA 1984 was introduced because the House of Lords, in its former judicial capacity, hadn't made clear what duty was owed to trespassers, only that one existed. Hence the Law Commission looked into it its recommendations prompted the Act. The pre-existing law was unclear, putting occupiers in an uncertain position and hence creating an opportunity for very real injustice. Occupiers are not liable for all injury suffered by trespassers as the poster alleges, instead a negligence-style duty of care is defined, so you need to know that a danger exists, have reasonable grounds to believe a trespasser would encounter it and to fail to take reasonable steps to prevent them from doing so, causing an injury to occur. A reasonable warning can be enough, per s1(5).
In summary: previous legislation and common law was unclear, the burden is heavily overstated by the poster.
Dispute the disagreement - OLA 1984 affords more rights to a trespasser than does the OLA 1957 to a legitimate visitor, which is ludicrous.
|50.||Misuse of Drugs Act 1971||Sections 8 (d)||This section of the Act makes it a crime for the occupier or manager of premises to permit someone to use cannabis on those premises. This section was due to be amended in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, section 38, but this new law was repealed under the Drugs Act 2005. Although the legal situation is currently somewhat vague, it appears that Section 8(d) is still in force. This law creates the absurd situation in which housing providers, drug treatment centers, and homeless shelters can work with heroin and other drug addicts within the law, but if the drug involved is cannabis the organisation risks prosecution if they allow the person to remain in their facilities. When around 10% of all 15-64 year olds use cannabis at least once per year (and many much more often) it is simply unreasonable and counterproductive to hold occupiers or managers criminally responsible for cannabis use on their premises.|
|51.||Building Regulations||Part P||These sections make it convoluted or near-impossible for a homeowner to easily do even the most basic electrical DIY without consulting the council - replacing a plug or an electrical switch. While electrical safety is important, this is an unreasonable restriction, that a homeowner "may" be alowed (or may equally be forbidden) to do such basic DIY work in their home. Cost to homeowner of replacing facia of socket themselves - £10 (£4 socket, £6 time). Cost to do same in an area where notification "may" or "may not" be required depending on the council - extra admin, extra letters, a council employee, time needed on hold to my council asking if they consider the work "notifiable" or not - total cost for my time, councils time, form designers, data processors, council data storage, offices and facilities, council's internal audit and compliance time, administration clerks, possible electrician? £200? There has to be a way to greatly lighten this unnecessary item. (Current "easy read" regulations)|
|52.||Criminal Justice Act 2003||Section 287||Requires courts to impose a mandatory minimum jail sentence of five years for possession of an illegal firearm. This has produced many notable injustices including the lengthy imprisonment of non-violent and otherwise law-abiding people who have come into possession or retained war trophies and antiques.  , |
|53.||The Prevention of Crime Act 1953||Sections 1(1) to (3) and 1A(10)||Has the effect of criminalizing the carrying of any object in public intended for the purpose of self-defence.|
|54.||Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959||The whole Act||This Act had the effect of banning perfectly legitimate tools from those who would benefit from them. Both 'flick knives' and 'gravity knives' utilize their method of releasing a blade to ensure safe operation when restricted to using one hand , the later notably being exclusively manufactured for parachute applications.  The way in which a folding knife folds has no bearing on its lethality and as folding knives in general are not illegal, concealment should not be a factor.|
|55.||Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000||General||The "controversy" section at Wikipedia gives a good summary of all that was wrong with this. A huge list of bodies were allowed to access private data, that data was promptly used for matters outside the anticipated scope of the law (dog fouling?), the matter was "sexed up" with reference to pornography and terrorism in a dubious manner as part of the politics of the time, it became a license to create a surveillance society, secondary legislation was wide open... awful lawmaking. But governments love power.|
|56.||Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000||Part 3||A specific part of the above. RIPA part 3 imposes a nearly impossible to argue presumption of guilt (encryption key possession), and for what? The sole prosecution under part III is a schizophrenic not judged to be a threat to national security, and not suspected of holding illegal material, jailed for 9 months. If I wanted to cause my spouse or anyone else some trouble, I'd put a file of random data on their computer, then anon call the police and claim they have an encrypted file of child porn and that's why I'm resigning/divorcing. They get investigated, the court demands an encryption key to the random data, they of course deny knowing anything, they get sentenced for refusal because the court "reasonably believes" it to be data and that therefore they "reasonably" must have had a key to it that they are withholding. Brilliant revenge recipe, not good law. Until these issues are faced, a law presuming guilt has no fair place in this UK society.||Debate|
|57.||Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003||Part 5||This part of the act added airguns that use a self-contained air cartridge system to Section 5 of the Firearms Act, alongside rocket launchers and machine guns. Only around 1500 were surrendered and 6000 put on a firearm license. BASC estimates that around 68000 are still in circulation , the owners of which face prosecution should they be found in possession or decide to hand them in to the police. Essentially, somewhere near 68000 new criminals were created overnight. Another 'feel-good' law that achieved nothing but taking away people's hobbies.|
|58.||The Policing and Crime Act 2009||Part 2||14, 53A introduces a new offence of paying for sexual services with a strict liability that a third person (c) has not engaged in coercive behaviour. The definition of coercive behaviour in the act is too broad, including any form of deception. Minor forms of deception are included in almost all human interactions and that means that (a) would be guilty of an offence in almost any situation where a third person is involved. The act is not designed to protect victims from abuse and that the law is too broad.
Strict liability goes against natural justice and the provision is not well regarded by the police, who consider it very hard to enforce. In fact, it may be harmful to those who offer sexual services as will any law that prevents openness. This provision of the act should be removed for being unworkable and for eroding the principle of "mens rea". It is not the place of Government to dictate what adults do with their bodies in private, but it is fair to restrict what is done in public.
Comment: s.14? Ouch! This essentially criminalises all paid sex, by any person, anywhere in the world, because nobody can know for sure whether some third party may have made some statement that might be cited as a form of coercion, or told some statement a fraction less than the truth, to the hooker, and there is no defence of ignorance nor any restriction to UK territory. If soliciting or accepting prostitution is to be criminalised, or it is to be a crime for a citizen to have sex with a prostitute anywhere in the world, say so directly. But if the intent of this is to impede sex slavery, then it's an awful, awful, approach. Amicus 13:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC) (disclosure - I have never in my life paid for sex nor been with any prostitute)
|59.||The Road Traffic Act 1988||Part 1||21, 172 forces motorists to incriminate themselves, stripping them of the normal Right to Silence. This is most often used in speed camera cases.|
|60.||Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001
Criminal Justice Act 2003
|Sections dealing with DNA evidence||Revoke of the sections allowing DNA to be effectively taken from anyone, where any suspicion of anything is alleged (however unfounded or trivial), which to add insult to injury, they also cannot easily get removed and is kept indefinitely. While DNA is useful to have on database for future crimes, the logic of "keep it in case it's useful" has been rejected - we do not for example DNA profile the entire nation. Good justification is needed to take DNA, keep DNA, and to not within a very few months of use, destroy DNA, even if it would potentially be useful to have on file for decades. In principle DNA should not be accessible unless there is reasonable suspicion of a jury triable offence or one carrying imprisonment, and should be destroyed upon aquittal or within 3 years of end of sentence for less serious offences. Long term storage might be justified for offences involving violence, burglary, sexual issues, and a specific list of matters, but not "everything".|
|61.||The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003||Section 296ZE||A good section, but why the cumbersome and intimidating requirement that a consumer must seek redress via the Secretary of State? Surely this can be simplified and made more accessible with direct approach to the copyright holder, or by the courts?
The requirement might be reworded as: "...may deliver notice to the copyright holder or their appointed representative in the designated form, and upon receipt of such a notice a means shall be provided by the copyright holder or their appointed representative to enable a person to carry out the permitted act within a reasonable period"
and perhaps: "In the event of a failure by a copyright holder to provide a means to carry out the permitted act within a reasonable time, the complainant seeking to undertake a permitted act may apply to the Court for an order requiring compliance."
|62.||Terrorism Act 2000||Section 58||Outlaws possessing an immensely wide range of information ("of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism"). This could conceivably be any information, as any information could in theory be "useful". There is no requirement of any evidence that it was intended in fact to be useful, was downloaded in connection with terrorism, or anything of that kind. There is no defence that on a balance of probability it was not in the person's possession with a criminal intention. We're here on the Wikipedia/Wikiversity website, a clear example of this - someone wrote up the encyclopedia's hundreds of articles on explosives, tactics, terrorism tricks, detection methods, police procedures. Someone obtained and had in their possession the scientific and operational research to do that article writing. "Material likely to be useful"? Of course! So... arrest them for having edited the article or viewed it on their computer? (Viewing is deemed to be possession/control in cyberlaw as the browser saves a copy to the computer). See also this Appeal Court case.
This section is hopelessly widely drawn. It's also hopelessly ineffective. Most material that "could be useful" has dual uses that are non-terrorism based, common curiosity and non-censorship are highly regarded values, and - lacking any and all safeguards that there is some tie between the information and a criminal interest - this section effectively forbids viewing or owning of all kinds of information and knowledge with valid uses. A recent case exposing the draconian nature of this was that of Home Gunsmith series author Philip Luty's recent arrest, and subsequent arrest of many people who downloaded his legal books available via his website. 
|63.||The Firearms Act||Signal apparatus (Flare guns)||Flare guns used for signalling are included under section.1, requiring a Firearm Certificate to purchase and possess. This causes an unnecessary burden on those wishing to have a means of signalling at sea or while hiking. Many collectors of valuable WW1 & WW2 flare guns have had to have theirs destroyed as part of the deactivation process in order to keep them. Disposable flare launchers are however not covered and can be purchased freely - these are however inferior and have caused injuries to the user due to their weak cases exploding. The majority of EU countries and indeed the rest of the world do not require these vital safety items to be licenced, therefore the UK should follow suite and exclude flare guns from the firearms Act.|
|64.||Unsure (relates to taking photos of ones children and family)||News reports over the years highlight an excessive and increasing infringement of family rights, in the area of parents and friends taking photos of their kids' activities. Parents and friends forbidden from taking pics of their children's Christmas nativity play, or family photos on the beach or park, or at football, or in extreme cases considered to be grounds for suspicion of paedophilia. I have a suspicion that the number of adults taking such pictures for innocent family reasons massively outweighs the number of delinquents who take such pictures for obsession. (Are pics of kids so hard for a perv to take elsewhere that nativity plays and football grounds get filled with such malfeasors... unlikely) I don't know what rules, regulations or laws led to this incursion and near-criminalising of the ordinary record of the most precious part of life - the growing up of one's family and ones children's achievements and social activities - but applicable laws or uncertainties needs revoking or clarifying.|
|65.||Data Protection Act 1998||A review of this act, which is well intentioned and broadly beneficial, but widely considered too complex and has the effect of massive "red tape" in practice, especially on clubs, non-profits, and small businesses and organisations. See Data Protection Act 1998: 'Complexity' and 'Problems of Interpretation' on Wikipedia for a summary: "[DPA1998] has a reputation for complexity... interpreting the act is not always simple. Many companies, organisations and individuals seem very unsure of the aims, content and principles of the DPA. Some hide behind the Act and refuse to provide even very basic, publicly available material quoting the Act as a restriction..." 
Rightly or wrongly, DPA has also been held responsible by some news sources for issues such as the above (children's photos) due to wider society not being sure exactly what was "pesonal information" or okay, and what was not. Perhaps also a de minimis exemption from registration may be possible and worthwhile for small businesses and organisations and certain kinds of usage?
|66.||Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949||Section 5(b)||5(b)(i) - Any reception of unencrypted radio communications not on a ‘broadcast band’ is illegal. Criminalises plane-spotters with their scanner. Far too wide ranging.
Trivial example. A laptop or mobile phone user visits a wireless point at a cafe or other location. He/she requests the device to locate suitable wireless connections to identify 1) if there is indeed a wireless connection available or 2) to connect to the cafe's stated network. The device (as normal for wifi) lists all 6 networks it can identify as broadcasting in the area, including a fellow cafe-user's mobile phone that's bluetooth-connected and a named wifi network from an office next door, and asks which one the user wishes to connect to. The messages sent by these networks are legally a "message" (defined as: "the making of any signal or the sending or conveying of any... information"), so just by checking or attempting to identify the wifi connection the user has already breached 5(b)(i).
Solution: rewrite this section to specify a much narrower list of broadcast sources or wavebands, and to equipment designed for (or intended for use in) unauthorised intercepting or descrambling mobile phone, portable phone, wireless internet, bluetooth, and other domestic wireless communications, with an exclusion for communications intended to be received by any receiving device (eg location broadcasts, device connection request signals, signals picked up by wireless equipment which are not stored or put into human-readable form, etc).
|67.||The Immigration (Certificate of Entitlement to the Right of Abode in the United Kingdom Regulations 2006 (No 3145) and The 2002 Immigration Act Section 10 which gives authority to the home secretary to pass statutory regulations||This regulation which did not undergo a legally required impact assessment and claimed it did not over ride primary legislation nor the European Charter on Human Rights is used by the immigration authority to assert control over those they have no right to control with regards their rights to live and work freely in the UK. The 2002 Act provides executive power to the Home Secretary to circumvent going to parliament and has been used to create the 2006 regulations which came in force in 2008. It was also passed when the anti terror legislations were, and overrides the rights of British Patrials who have right of abode in the uk based on their descent from a father or mother born in the UK and is a British citizen. A law against being half English, Scottish, Welsh, or Irish.||This act ha been used to override primary legislation over the children of British born parents who were born before February 07 1961 to subject them to repeated application and fees without regard to their ability to pay such fees as a captive market with the sole purpose of making money and subjecting them to direct and indirect control regardless of all the primarily legislations namely the 1971 immigration act which allows such persons to be treated equally and on the same basis as British citizens. Furthermore section 15 of the 2006 Asylum, Immigration, and Nationality act has been ignored to suggest when a passport has expired that such persons become subject to control while ignoring the fact that a statutory right is vested in the person and not in his/her documents. This is a perverse set of laws that allow ILE/ILR holders to evidence their rights using an expired passport while preventing those who have the right of abode, a status that is not subject to immigration control to be controlled in this manner.
It is an unjust act designed to force the take up of the identity cards and also holds such persons as a captive market and states that such persons should cost recovery fees even if they are already tax payers and the children of UK tax payers and have the closely of all links through blood to the country mostly children of mixed commonwealth and UK citizens living in the country.
|68.||Public Order Act 1986||Section 5||Unfortunately used to enforce 'speech crime' (as an excuse to arrest usually) - anything said or written on a placard (i.e. during protest) that may cause 'offence' is an arrestable offence.|
|69.||Criminal Justice Act 1987||Section 2A||This section makes it a crime not to answer a question in an interview conducted under this part. This is a travesty of justice and can allow the SFO to go on fishing experditions asking questions on pain of imprisonment a businessman may not know the answer to. In the wost case it is possible, and has happened, for the SFO to charge someone for not answering a question even though the question is unconected to the offence being investigated|
|70.||Sexual Offences Act 2003||Part 1, Section 45, Clauses 1 and 2, and related||This section extends the definition of "child" from the Protection of Children Act (1978) to cover persons of 16 and 17 years. This age group is thereby covered by child pornography laws in the aforementioned 1978 act and elsewhere. It is thusly illegal to make "indecent" images of 16 and 17 year olds (or indeed in most cases for 16 and 17 year olds to make such images of themselves.) [The term "indecent" is undefined in law.]
The main problem with this legislation is that it is logically and morally incompatible with the age of sexual consent being 16 years. A recording or depiction of a lawful act should not be unlawful; neither should persons who are legally recognised as sexual beings - and therefore adults in that regard - be prohibited from recording or depicting themselves, or consenting to be recorded or depicted, as sexual beings. While the motivation behind the extension of protection to 16 and 17 year olds was well-meaning, it does not make rational or moral sense that an image or recording of a person with whom one can legally have sexual intercourse should be legally defined as "child pornography". The protection of children and young people from exploitation is paramount to a just and decent society; however, the laws by which we live our lives should also make a modicum of sense. This inconsistency in the legislation could alternatively be rectified equally well by raising the age of sexual consent to 18.
|71.||The Merchant Shipping (Inland Waterway and Limited Coastal Operations) (Boatmasters' Qualifications and Hours of Work) Regulations 2006||Alter section 4 to deregulate rather than require alternative equivalent qualifications||This is the narrowing of an over-broad piece of legislation. For many years, charities, community groups, scouts etc. have taken groups of children narrowboating, happily chugging along Britain's inland waterways at 3mph without any problem. However, the above SI makes it a requirement for the captain of a narrowboat carrying non-relatives to have a qualification. The simplest one, the National Community Boats Association's Certificate of Boat Management, costs over £100, plus two days of time and travel, to obtain. The upshot is that fewer groups go narrowboating because leaders cannot be bothered to get the qualification - they just go and do something simpler instead, like camping.
However, there is a predicted network effect - as the volume of business dries up, the suitable multi-berth boats will become uneconomical to run for the hire companies, and will get retired or converted. Then, it will not be possible for anyone to go, qualification or not. Over-regulation kills what it attempts to control.
The playing field here is not level - the captain of a boat containing a family or family group is not required to be qualified. (Doing so would devastate the leisure canal boat hire industry.) And I know of no accidents which this regulation might have been brought in to prevent a repeat of. It's just regulation for the sake of it. There is no need for this regulation; those who lead community groups and camps are already checked for suitability in many other ways. They should be allowed to use their judgement, and parents should be allowed to assess for themselves whether the person appointed to run an activity seems competent and careful.
At the very least, the skippering of narrowboats hired for pleasure on inland waterways should be deregulated entirely.
Comment: Cogently argued.
Agree: Excellent argument for deregulation. This Act is endemic of public life in Britain: regulation for the sake of regulation, tick-boxing to satisfy bureaucrats.
|72.||The Proceeds Of Crime Act 2002 and amendments 2007 and 2009||This Law has destroyed the Presumption of Innocence and allows the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service to punish the innocent before charge and before trial. It allows Police to seize every moveable item of value from a suspect before charge and further allows the Crown Prosecution Service to freeze all a suspects assets before charge and before trial. It brings forward the spectre of a Police State to Britain Visit www.afbio.co.uk to see the abuse|
|73.||The Road Vehicles (Statutory Off-Road Notification) Regulations 1997||Section 7||When keeping a vehicle off road, it should be sufficent to declare SORN once. However you must tell the DVLA every year that nothing has changed or be fined. A headache for classic car owners who happen to be on holiday when the renewal arrives. Why should privately owned possesions, on private land, be 'licensed' by the state in this way?
Comment Makes sense. The off-road notice should have an option "until further notice" where the owner states they will notify DVLA if this changes.
Agree: Above comment offers good alternative.
|74.||Land Registration Act 2002||Part 9, Schedule 6 and Schedule 12 Section 18 (see also consequential amendments and repeals below)||The news routinely reports cases of adverse possession where legitimate land and home-owners must go through much legal process, expense and often distress and difficulty, to recover land and property that has been occupied without their consent. There is a valid benefit to adverse possession law, in that land and property not managed by its owner should have owners' status granted to its actual occupant after a period of time and unused land should be allowed to have economic use, but this should cover land and property in some state of abandonment by the owner and/or whose occupation is unchallenged for a substantial time, not any occupation of any brief duration and however obtained (with or without permission). The current law is archaic and routinely responsible for cases of very grave injustice.
Granting the same legal right over property to merely opportunistic occupiers from the moment they acquire de facto control, or to any person who manages to change the locks regardless of ownership rights, is abusive and unjust. A person who acquires any other asset without permission or rights knows they may lose possession at any moment. It's the nature of "property". With any other property, an owner can quickly and easily gain recovery, if necessary by asking the police or courts to "move on" the non-owner. The law supporting adverse possession being different for land and property (other than longer term uncontested occupation) should be repealed, for the removal of injustice. A better approach is suggested on the debate page.
|75.||Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988||Especially Sections 12-15||This Act dates from the pre-digital age and is no longer appropriate. There are a huge number of published works that are in a 'limbo' situation where they are not in print but still governed by copyright laws. Change the rules so that once a work has been out of print for a certain time (say, 3 years) it automatically loses its copyright status (with a possible opt-out mechanism for those authors who specifically do not wish that to happen despite no longer earning royalties). This would enable such works to be scanned and placed on the Internet with a consequent huge increase in the accessibility of knowledge and learning that would therefore be made available to all.
Furthermore, remove all historical parish registers and other such data from copyright status entirely so that any organization such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which possesses copies of these documents can place such images online without needing the permission of any archivist or diocesan authority or anyone else for that matter. This would greatly increase access to such documents for family historians everywhere.
|76.||Traffic Act 1981, 1986 and later||Unknown||These Acts brought in compulsory seat belt wearing. Not only is the issue of an individual wearing a seat belt none of the Government's business rather a matter of personal choice and responsibility there is also reasonable evidence to assume it has not reduced the number of accidents or fatalities see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation#The_British_law
Disagree: Surely common-sense dictates that seat-belt wearing saves lives. The evidence you're suggesting presumably stems from the phenomena that people act more recklessly when they have what they believe to be a safeguard on their behaviour, i.e., the seat-built and airbag will save them, so they subconsciously drive more quickly and recklessly than otherwise. Recommend that this is a societal problem, caused by people of all ages (not least middle-aged men trying to prove a point) who do not seem to understand that they are driving 3 ton death machines. More education needed at a teenage level.
|77.||1925 Dangerous Drugs Act and others||Unknown||This Act and its successors have criminalised the use of cannabis and other substances. The use of such substances is purely a matter of personal choice and responsibility. Secondly the criminalisation of these substances has created a huge criminal supply network which would be removed by the decriminalisation of drugs as well as improving the quality/safety of the substances and reducing the consequential crime caused by drug users/addicts.
Agree: See above, use of narcotics incompatible with the principles behind a free, capitalist society in which individuals have duties and responsibilities as well as 'rights'. An individual's action do not happen in isolation. Society is a complex system, and every action can have repercussions.
|78. commnet||Child Car Seat Regulations - 2006||Unknown||This is an area of parental decision and responsibility.
Disagree: There are a shocking number of parents simply incapable of looking after their children properly. Acknowledge that this is a deep-rooted societal problem that must be solved by other means, but let's at least try and save some children's lives along the way.
|79.||Unknown comment- if you feel strongly about this then identify what law it is that needs changing!||Unknown||Laws criminalising brothels and associated facets of prostitution. Such laws should be removed and prostitution decriminalised. It is a matter of personal choice and private negotiation. Criminalising it only makes the 'business' more dangerous, linked to criminal gangs, harder to zone and removes the tax revenue.
Disagree: Moves already in place to criminalise the men rather than the women, targetting demand instead of supply. This seems a more reasonable approach, but nonetheless, the principle behind this (as yet unidentified) act remains morally right.
|80.||The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988||Article 2||This part of the act lists various items to be restricted as 'offensive weapons' which makes a criminal offense or importing or selling them. This list was infact taken directly from a popular martial arts catalogue at the time and includes obscure novalty items that aren't even weapons, such as 'foot claws' (A 'ninja' costume prop to enable climbing of walls) and 'butterfly knives', the description of which outlaws many popular fruit knife designs from the turn of the century. 'Blow pipes' are also included, essentially outlawing children's toys and souveneers brought back from South America and South East Asia. These items present no danger whatsoever to public safety and istead the act criminalises collector's items and legitimate bladed tools. The useless nature of this act can be further demonstrated by the fact that swords, machetes, clubs and combat knives are readily and legally available.|
|81.||The Education (Student Support) (No.2) Regulations 2008 No. 1582||Part 2 6(b), 7(c), 8(d)||This penalises the sons and daughters of those UK citizens working outside the UK, who attend international schools but wish to return to the UK to attend universities in England. No allowance is made for the UK curriculum taught in the international schools, nor whether the student returns home to the UK every school year. The finances of the student are dependant on the activities of the parent. Before international schools were available, migrant workers would need to place their children in boarding schools, this legislation turns back the clock.|
|81.||The Animal Welfare Act 2006||Reword Introductory Section 2(b) to exclude 'protected' status from an animal if under the control of man for the purpose of pest control||This criminalises reasonable activity in controlling animal pests (a squirrel in a recent example) The legislation anthropomorphises wild animals and then penalises behaviour towards them. It is also the Act under which goldfish cannot be sold or given as prizes to persons under the age of sixteen.
Disagree: Does not anthropomorphise animals. Rather, acknowledge that they feel pain and are part of the natural world and all the beauty therein. The idea of goldfish given away as prizes is repugnant. Many of the fish are often poorly cared for and diseased, and endure short, miserable lives.
|82.||The Protection from Harassment Act 1997||The whole Act||This Act is liable be used oppressively as instrument or pretext for harassment with litigation and threats of litigation and with force and threats of force. It is also liable to encourage excessive intolerance.
This Act is liable to encourage unwarranted interference (by the police and courts) with every aspect of ordinary life. This Act is liable to have a chilling effect on every aspect of ordinary life.
This Act might be in danger of maliciously misconstrued in a sexist manner that discriminates heterosexual men simply for being what they are. A normal person might be in danger of being maliciously prosecuted essentially on account of being in love with an abnormal anti-social sociopath. That is the apparent tennor and subtext of some of the literature being published on this subject. It is completely sinister.
It might be worthwhile to retain section 4 provisionally if it is heavily amended so as to remove elements of strict liability ("ought to know"), words reversing the normal burden of proof, get out clauses for police officers etc. and the entire "course of conduct" nonsense . . . though it would be much better to replace it with a completely new provision, included in the body of the repealing Act or inserted into the Offences against the Person Act 1861, creating an offence of intentionally or recklessly causing fear of violence without lawful excuse, which is what should have been enacted in the first place.
Section 1 on the other hand is so vague that it could be twisted to mean just about anything. The examples given in section 2A(3) are dangerous because they include references to conduct that is (a) usually benign, and possibly always benign, and (b) unavoidable.
A statute of this kind ought to be sufficiently precise that a police officer reading it in bad faith could not possibly even pretend to misunderstand it. This Act does not even come close to that in relation to the protean offences of harassment and stalking, and it would be better to have no statute at all. This Act, taken as a whole, is one of the most potentially dangerous pieces of legislation ever enacted.
Constitutional deregulation[edit | edit source]
|Clause||Legislation||Extent of repeal||Reasoning|
|1.||Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006||Section 6(2) to (5), Section 12(2)(c)(i), Section 15(1)(a), Section 15(3), Section 16||This Act allows changes in legislation and regulation without reference to Parliament. At the very least, the mentioned sections should be repealed. This will disallow secondary legislation from creating new punishable offences and will also stop the negative resolution procedure from being used to push legislation through Parliament.|
|2.||European Communities Act 1972||The entire Act||This Act undermines democracy by transferring powers from the British Parliament to unelected functionaries abroad. It allows substantial changes in the law to be made without a vote in Parliament.
Disagree: Repealing this Act will in practice mean the UK leaving the EU.
Agree: A large proportion of our laws (in the order of 75%) are made by the EU with Parliament having no say in their imposition. Repealing this Act will in practice mean leaving the EU, which will result in the restoration of sovereignty which was given away by various governments without the consent of either Parliament or the people.
Disagree: the 75% figure is an invention of those that advocate departure. The EU has no jurisdiction over policing, defence, education, health or any of the other things people actually base their votes upon. Substantial changes cannot be made without a decision of the British executive since EU law takes effect only on ministerial order.Agree: The principle should be that the crown-in-parliament has supreme legislative power for the United Kingdom. Membership of the EU impinges on that principle. However, the issue of the EU must be taken into consideration with other international memberships, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, which also limits unacceptably the actions that may be conducted by the crown-in-parliament. Further, possible to argue that the EU is an anachronistic organisation considering the massive growth in economies outside of Europe, free trade with which Britain could benefit.
|3.||Parliament Act 1911||Section 7||This Act allows changes in legislation without reference to the House of Lords. At the very least, the 1949 Act should be repealed, because the 1911 Act was sufficient. The 1911 Act could also be amended so it could not be used to amend the constitution (the 1949 Act was passed by invoking the 1911 Act).
Agree: This Act should not be repealed but amended to disallow further constitutional Acts to be passed using it (such as the Parliament Act 1949). Section 7 should be repealed (see Septennial Act 1715 below).Agree: Allows too much power to the executive to push through massive changes without effective consultation and checks and balances. However, must be completed in conjunction with a reform of the Lords that gives them real teeth to check the power of the Commons.
|4.||Parliament Act 1949||The entire Act||This Act shortens the durations in which the House of Lords can delay legislation from three to two sessions/two years to one year. The Parliament Act 1911 already establishes the primacy of the House of Commons and this Act should be repealed (with relevant provisions to re-enact amended sections of the 1911 Act) to enhance scrutiny and prevent bad bills from being passed.|
|6.||European Union (Amendment) Act 2008||The entire Act||Gives force to the European Constitution (Treaty of Lisbon - may only be ratified if the Lisbon Treaty wins popular support in a national referendum)
Disagree: Now that the Treaty is in force, any referendum will be purely academic since there is nothing the UK Parliament can do about it short of leaving the EU.
Agree: Leaving the EU is a much better outcome than retaining a hugely flawed and monstrously undemocratic EU Constitution. In any case, it is quite possible that unilaterally repealing this Act will result in the EU requesting the UK to remain involved in more or less the same way that Norway and Switzerland are involved. Again, if we stay in the EU, then the whole Government project of "Big Society" through devolution of power and accountability will be a mockery: huge powers are currently held by EU bodies and cannot be devolved without repealing this (and probably other) Acts.
Disagree: leaving EU debate is already covered by the ECA debate, above. The EU's "huge powers" are all subservient to its role to ensure effective trade. They do not include any of the areas voters identify as wanting to keep in Britain. That's why it wasn't the EU that decided whether to go to war in Iraq, there's no European Health Service, etc.Agree: The 'disagree' above does not consider that the EU has already begun legislating into areas far beyond trade, including such humdrum things as waste collection and environmental management. The idea of the EU as a trade bloc ended with its transition from the European Community to the current Union.
|7.||Human Rights Act 1998||The entire Act||To be repealed and replaced by proposed new Bill of Rights . The proposed new Bill should be written only in accordance with, and in the spirit of, the existing Bill of Rights 1689  and should create enhanced rights for established, ethnic Britons above and beyond any 'entry-level' rights which may be granted to foreign newcomers of unknown antecedence. In any event, this statue shall renounce and repudiate the use of cruel and unusual punishment against all persons whilst they remain within the environs of the United Kingdom. No person of any ethnic background shall suffer torture or any other form of cruel and unusual punishment whilst they remain within United Kingdom. The possibility that they may become so at risk if deported, however, is not a proper matter for United Kingdom courts which shall confine themselves to domestic considerations alone.
Disagree: The Human Rights Act 1998 implements certain human rights obligations under European Community law (see the charter of fundamental rights). The proposed 'Bill of Rights' would effectively have to contain everything already within the HRA 1998 and confining the courts to 'domestic' considerations alone opens the path for massive governmental abuse of fundamental human rights. It will also be expensive to redraft the legislation for no real purpose.
Second disagree: the Bill of Rights 1689 primarily governs the rights of parliament as against the monarch, e.g. establishing that "the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament." and tying . Citing it suggests confusion with the American Bill of Rights which is explicitly and exclusively about the rights of an individual as against the state. Further legislation drawn up in the tradition of the English act would do no more than enshrine various constitutional conventions under which the monarchy already functions. Drafting alternative legislation about the rights of individuals against the state would be a waste of time and money as per the first disagree. Creating a tiered set of rights that depends in any way on ethnicity is unsupportable since taxation and other participation in the state is not dependent on ethnicity. Furthermore, trying to define the rights owed by a state to those living within it according to any criteria of prior contributions (whether by blood line or otherwise) inherently suggests that the rich should get better rights than the poor; to promote blood line above other considerations suggests a predisposition to reaching that conclusion by any route.Agree: Unacceptably impinges upon the legislative supremacy of the crown-in-parliament and the independence of the British judiciary. Power and authority of the state and the law depends upon the law's ability to offer guarantees to subjects, but also on the inability of subjects to find a way around the law and circumvent it. The position of European courts as the supreme appellant courts undermines our law, judiciary and parliament. Historically, this has proved untenable (see origins of the Hundred Years War). But, agree with above, Bill of Rights 1689 already offers constitutional protections. We survived nearly three centuries without anything piled up on top.
|9.||The EU Data Retention Directive||The entire Directive||This directive mandates that all communcations traffic (Email, Web, Phone, Cellphone, SMS etc) messages be kept for up to 18 months by the service providers. At the moment, it just requires the logs, not the content of the communication, but this is merely because of technical limitations. This directive requires what should be forbidden: ISPs should not be permitted to retain any additional logging except the bare minimum required for billing. Government (or other officials) should not be allowed to impose retrospective surveillance, or go on "fishing" expeditions. This is an EU directive, not a UK law, but it's so bad that it should be explicitly voided. Free speech requires the right to anonymous speech. Wiretapping must be limited in extend, and require a court order.|
|11.||The Immigration (Certificate of Entitlement to the Right of Abode in the United Kingdom) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/3145)||The entire Regulations||This act was used to attempt to over ride primary legislation over the children of British born parents who were born before 7 February 1961 to subject them to repeated application and fees without regard to their ability to pay such fees as a capitive market with the sole purpose of making money and subjecting them to direct and indirect control regardless of all the primarily legislations namely the 1971 immigration act which allows such persons to be treated equally and on the same basis as British citizens. It is an unjust act designed to force the takeup of the identity cards and also holds such persons as a captive market and states that such persons should cost recovery fees even if they are already tax payers and the children of UK tax payers and have the closesly of all links through blood to the country mostly children of mixed commonwealth and uk citizens living in the country.|
Charitable reform[edit | edit source]
|Clause||Legislation||Extent of repeal||Reasoning|
|1.||Charities Act 2006||Provision for "public benefit" of private schools||A politically motivated clause that forces an unnecessary and deliberate burden on private schools that provide excellent education. To be replaced with a provision banning the use of taxpayers' money, in the form of tax refunds, to politically motivated "charities" such as the Taxpayers' Alliance.
Disagree - the Act's public benefit requirement allows judges to weight the balance between benefit to society and cost on the public purse (tax breaks etc) that will be accorded to charities; institutions should prove their worth before being awarded free tax breaks.Comment: I agree with the proposal. The Act rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of what charitable status is for. It is not about tax, it is about allowing property to be held indefinitely for a defined purpose, rather than belonging to a particular person. If the Government wants independent schools (or political campaigning groups) to pay tax on their income, it should change the tax rules, not monkey around with the definition of charitable status.
|2.||Education Act 1994||Section 22, Clause 2(f)||This restriction unfairly limits paid part-time elected officers and should really have been dovetailed in with "major union office holders" in Clause 2(d). With the diversification of students' unions and the move in many mature/part-time institutions to have paid officers working part-time(following the Widening Participation agenda), this Clause is a barrier to good governance.|
|3.||Education Act 1994||Section 22, Clause 9||With the advancement of online or virtual voting, this exemption for 'open' or 'distance-learning' students' union not to have to hold a secret ballot to elect their 'major union office holders' is obselete. Quite easily this can be made part of the distance learning student experience.|
Obsolete and spent provisions[edit | edit source]
|Clause||Legislation||Extent of repeal||Reasoning|
|1.||Easter Act 1928||The entire Act||This Act has never been bought into force, and if it were to happen at some stage, it would make the UK out-of-sync with the date of Easter in all other countries. The date of Easter is a consideration for the churches, not Parliament. Another reason being it is an infringement of a persons right to celebrate religious occasions when they would traditionally do so.|
Authorities and bodies to be abolished[edit | edit source]
|Clause||Authority or body||Enabling Legislation||Reasoning||Debate|
|1.||England Marketing Advisory Board||Obsolete and no longer necessary.|
|2.||Gambling Commission||Gambling Act 2005, Part 2 and Schedule 4 plus consequential amendments||Obsolete and no longer necessary.
Disagree: This sector arguably more than most needs some sort of statutory regulation in order to stop questionable practices and the addiction that goes along with gambling.
|3.||Horserace Betting Levy Board||Can be dissolved by commencing Part 2 of the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Act 2004||Obsolete and no longer necessary.
Agreed: Do we really need a board for this (especially if the government will be selling off the Tote)?
|4.||British Wool Marketing Board||No reason why farmers cannot have a marketing organisation. No reason why they have to register with this board.|
|5.||The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board||Again, like wool marketing, there is no reason why we need a board with a compulsory levy on the potato industry. If potato farmers want a marketing association then they can set one up.|
|6.||The Equalities and Human Rights Commission||Organisation established to promote and protect equality and human rights. The introduction of a Bill of Rights would make this body redundant with protection of rights being a matter for the courts to assess against the BOR. TimC 15:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)|
|7.||The Electoral Commission||Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000||Expansionist quango looking to take over elections from local authorities, centralise them and make them easier to rig. Widely-reported problems at close of poll on 6 May could have been avoided if money wasted on the Commission had been available to Acting Returning Officers to do their job.|
|8.||The Infrastructure Planning Commission||Planning Act 2008||Planning should be done by elected local authorities, not bureaucrats. This NDPB will soon be abolished and consumed by The Planning Inspectorate.|
|9.||The Planning Inspectorate and the Advisory Panel on Standards for the Planning Inspectorate||Planning should be done by elected local authorities, not bureaucrats.|
|10.||Capacitybuilders||Three NDPBs are not required for the voluntary sector. Charities can work just as well directly with government.|
|11.||The Social Investment Business||Three NDPBs are not required for the voluntary sector. Charities can work just as well directly with government.|
|12.||Commission for the Compact||Three NDPBs are not required for the voluntary sector. Charities can work just as well directly with government.|
|13.||Better Regulation Executive||A little ironic that the drive for less red tape is being led by another NDPB.|
|14.||Women's National Commission||Can easily be merged into the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. The future of this NDPB is currently being reviewed.|
|15.||Homes and Communities Agency||Should be abolished and its functions merged into CLG.|
|17.||National Lottery Commission||Should be merged with the Gambling Commission.|
Consequential amendments and repeals[edit | edit source]
|Clause||Legislation||Extent of repeal||Reasoning|
|1.||Limitation Act 1980||Sections 15-18||This is as a consequence of repeals to the Land Registration Act 2002.|
|2.||Communications Act 2003||Section 124A-R||This is as a consequence of repeals to the Digital Economy Act 2010, which amended this Act.|
See also[edit | edit source]
References[edit | edit source]
- "Route Map to Reform: Deregulation" (PDF). Adam Smith Institute. 2007-11-20. Retrieved 2010-05-29.
- "Supply Side Politics" (PDF). CPS. 2007. Retrieved 2010-05-29.
- "Quangos to be abolished". Yahoo.
- "CentreRight: What laws would you repeal?". Conservativehome.blogs.com. 2008-06-10. Retrieved 2010-04-09.
- "The Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004". Opsi.gov.uk. Retrieved 2010-04-09.
- "Employment Act 2002 (c. 22)". Opsi.gov.uk. Retrieved 2010-04-09.
- "The Weights and Measures (Packaged Goods) Regulations 2006". Opsi.gov.uk. Retrieved 2010-04-09.
- "Housing Act 2004 (c. 34)". Opsi.gov.uk. 2004-12-01. Retrieved 2010-04-09.
- "The Home Information Pack (Suspension) Order 2010". Legislation.gov.uk. 2010-05-19. Retrieved 2010-08-04.
- "Works council". En.wikipedia.org. Retrieved 2010-04-09.
- "Law of the European Union - Social chapter". En.wikipedia.org. Retrieved 2010-05-29.
- "Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 1551". Opsi.gov.uk. Retrieved 2010-04-09.
- "The Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 (Amendment) Regulations 2002". Opsi.gov.uk. Retrieved 2010-04-09.
- "The Companies Act 1985 (Operating and Financial Review and Directors' Report etc.) Regulations 2005". Opsi.gov.uk. Retrieved 2010-04-09.
- "The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005". Opsi.gov.uk. Retrieved 2010-04-09.
- "HM Revenue & Customs: IR35 - Countering Avoidance in the Provision of Personal Services". Hmrc.gov.uk. Retrieved 2010-04-09.
- "exposes the truth of IR35's pitiful tax take". PCG. 2009-05-26. Retrieved 2010-04-09.
- "IR35". En.wikipedia.org. Retrieved 2010-04-09.
- "Fair tax". En.wikipedia.org. Retrieved 2010-04-09.
- "Americans For Fair Taxation". Fairtax.org. Retrieved 2010-04-09.
- "Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report". Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved 2010-05-29.
- "Police Act 1997 (c. 50)". Opsi.gov.uk. Retrieved 2010-04-09.
- "Adults 'scared to go near kids'". BBC News. 2008-06-26. Retrieved 2010-04-09.
- "Criminal records mix-up uncovered". BBC News. 2006-05-21. Retrieved 2010-04-09.
- "The Copyright (Computer Programs) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/3233)". Opsi.gov.uk. Retrieved 2010-05-29.
- "UK Strategic Export Control Lists (Dual-Use Items)" (PDF). Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. Retrieved 2010-05-29.
- "The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/2498)". Opsi.gov.uk. 2003-09-27. Retrieved 2010-05-29.
- "Consumer Credit Act 1974, s. 127". UK Statute Law Database. Retrieved 2010-05-24.
- "Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22)". Opsi.gov.uk. Retrieved 2010-04-09.
- "No one can define new hunt ban". BBC News. 2004-12-10. Retrieved 2010-05-29.
- "Hunting Act 2004 - Enforcement of the Hunting Act". En.wikipedia.org. Retrieved 2010-05-29.
- "Hunt ban is revenge for Thatcher's defeat of the miners, says Labour MP". The Telegraph. 2004-09-19. Retrieved 2009-07-30.
- "Handgun crime 'up' despite ban". BBC News. 2001-07-16. Retrieved 2010-05-29.
- "Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (c. 37)". Opsi.gov.uk. Retrieved 2010-04-09.
- Law Lords undermine Home Office case
- Elderly couple face jail for carrying pepper spray guns after brutal attack http://tablebear.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/justice-in-the-uk/
- "Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (c. 2) - Statute Law Database". Statutelaw.gov.uk. 2005-03-14. Retrieved 2010-04-09.
- "Control order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". En.wikipedia.org. Retrieved 2010-04-09.
- "UK | Concerns over fines by 'bouncers'". BBC News. 2009-07-25. Retrieved 2010-04-09.
- "The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons)(Amendment) Order 2008 No". Opsi.gov.uk. 2008-04-06. Retrieved 2010-04-09.
- "UK | Pub beer sales slump to low point". BBC News. 2007-11-20. Retrieved 2010-04-09.
- "Alcohol, Entertainment and Late Night Refreshment Licensing (see page 10)" (PDF). DCMS/National Archives. 2009-10-22. Retrieved 2010-04-13.
- "Number of Scottish pubs rises since smoking ban". Herald Scotland. 2008-08-16. Retrieved 2010-04-13.
- "Widespread support for smoking ban" (PDF). Office of National Statistics. 2008-06-18. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2008-06-20. Retrieved 2010-04-13.
- "British Judge: Christian Beliefs Have No Legal Standing". Huffington Post. 2010-04-30. Retrieved 2010-04-13.
- "Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33)". Opsi.gov.uk. 1996-04-01. Retrieved 2010-04-09.
- "UK | UK Politics | MPs urge 'more support for' TA". BBC News. 2007-07-11. Retrieved 2010-04-09.
- Bob, Colonel (2007-08-23). "We ask too much from our TA soldiers". Telegraph. Retrieved 2010-04-09.
- "FactCheck: Are UK-US extradition rules lopsided? - Channel 4 News". Channel4.com. Retrieved 2010-04-09.
- . DrugScope.
- World Drug Report 2006. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
- according to the NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects, part of the US govt Center for Disease Control the ED:LD ratio is 641 as opposed to 199 for aspirin.
- "Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 2699". Opsi.gov.uk. Retrieved 2010-04-09.
- R v Davis  Crim LR 564
- drugs act 2005 sch.1 govt explanation (see item 54)
- Grandmother faces five years in jail for 80 year old gun http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/10335003.stm
- 71 year old licensed gun owner jailed for five years for a few technically illegal guns. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6905852/Pensioner-jailed-for-hoarding-Aladdins-cave-of-firearms.html
- Man jailed for forgotten pistol in storage http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/7964280.stm
- Switchblade history http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYguo9ES46U
- Gravity knife history http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4578586_what-gravity-knife.html
- The Register, 24 November 2009, UK jails schizophrenic for refusal to decrypt files
- BASC - Brocock Ban http://www.airgunforum.net/agf/index.php?showtopic=9811&mode=threaded&pid=63011
- Philip Luty arrested for writing books considered 'likely to be useful' to terrorists http://lpuk.blogspot.com/2010/01/phillip-luty-update-free-speech-in.html
- Bainbridge, D: "Introduction to Computer Law - Fifth Edition", page 430. Pearson Education Limited, 2005
- Data Protection myths and realities, Information Commissioner's Office
- I use this word mainly for the purpose of irony. In truth, I fear that the enforcement or pretended enforcement of this Act could potentially involve a level of unwarranted paramilitary violence and intimidation that could, in ordinary non-technical language, be fairly labelled as "terrorism".
- Especially criminal litigation.
- i.e. subjective recklessness/advertant indifference
- The Act does not provide a closed and unambiguous definition of "harassment". Section 1(3) does not provide a comprehensive list of things that are or may reasonable. The statute doesn't even condescend to make the apparently obvious statement that conduct done in order to avoid equal or worse mental distress than that which is forseen is reasonable. It is far more interested in ensuring that police officers and other public officials who act in a plainly unreasonable manner are completely untouchable, via paragraphs (b) and (c).
- Unless you are a hermit, you cannot go through life without contacting other people. Nor can you go through life without looking at, or in the general direction of, other people ("watching").
- Cf. Re Castioni
- "Cameron 'could scrap' rights act". Retrieved 2007-04-02.
- "Bill of Rights (c.2)". Opsi.gov.uk. 2009-12-17. Retrieved 2010-04-09.
[edit | edit source]
- MP calls on voters to draft new law online, Gazette, Wednesday 5th August 2009
- Will Home Information Packs (HIPs) be ‘scrapped’?, HIP-Consultant.co.uk, September 3rd, 2009 HIP-Consultant.co.uk
- 10 Myths of Home Information Packs (HIP), HIP-Consultant.co.uk, November 24th, 2008
- , Man fined for drowning squirrel- The Independent July 19 2010
- (UK) Law Commission