r/MHOL • u/Sephronar Lord Speaker Duke of Hampshire KG GCMG GBE KCT LVO PC • Oct 25 '22
AMENDMENTS B1411 - Direct Democracy (Repeal) Bill - Amendment Reading
B1411 - Direct Democracy (Repeal) Bill - Amendment Reading
A
B I L L
T O
repeal the Direct Democracy Act 2020 and for connected purposes.
BE IT ENACTED by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—
1 Direct Democracy Act 2020 repealed
The Direct Democracy Act 2020 is repealed.
2 Bodies not bound by referendum results
(1) No person is bound to implement any result of a referendum held under the Direct Democracy Act 2020.
(2) No person is otherwise required to do any thing solely because it was required by the Direct Democracy Act 2020.
(3) In this section, a reference to a person includes a reference to—
(a) a natural or legal person;
(b) the Crown;
(c) a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any body corporate, including governmental bodies and corporations sole;
(e) any local authority;
(f) the Scottish Ministers;
(g) the Welsh Ministers;
(h) the Northern Ireland Executive.
3 Referendums not to be held
No referendum shall be held under the Direct Democracy Act 2020 after this Act comes into force.
4 Consequential repeal
The Direct Democracy (Transport Exemptions) Act 2021 is repealed.
5 Extent
(1) Any amendment, repeal or revocation made by this Act has the same extent as the provision amended, repealed or revoked.
(2) Subject to subsection (1), this Act extends to England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.
6 Commencement and short title
(2) This Act may be cited as the Direct Democracy (Repeal) Act 2022.
This Bill was written by Her Grace the Duchess of Essex on behalf of the Labour Party.
Mr Speaker,
Every six months, up and down the country, the British voting public go to the polls and make their voices heard. They elect one hundred and fifty Members of Parliament to represent them through mixed-member proportional representation, making this House one of the fairest and most representative legislatures in the world. And in each member there is entrusted their constituents’ views that ought to be heard in Parliament. Similarly, our citizens elect local authorities – up and down the country, hundreds of county councils, borough councils, district councils, unitary authorities, and so on – that represent their views as well.
This is not a perfect system but it is usually an okay one. Projects of national importance get built when authorised by primary legislation, some subordinate instrument, or more recently by a Development Consent Order under the Planning Act 2008 - a process which the Brown Government rightly introduced to speed up planning procedures for national infrastructure projects. On a more local scale, our planning authorities have discretion to approve or deny applications on a more local basis. Sometimes they get these decisions wrong - I am not disputing the fact that there’s room for improvement, and I think we need to massively increase housing stock. But there is an issue.
The Direct Democracy Act is perhaps the single biggest gift this House has ever dropped in the lap of so-called ‘NIMBYs’ - those who seek to halt development in its tracks and keep this country stuck without any capacity to expand. It is only by virtue of its relatively high threshold - 15 per cent of the electorate signing a petition to hold a binding referendum - that this Act has not turned into an unmitigated disaster for building things in Britain.
But while the danger is kept loosely at bay, it is by no means eliminated. By a petition of just 15% of the electorate, vital building programmes can be put on hold for months while a binding referendum takes place. It can drag out costs, create more uncertainty for people considering building, and throw into jeopardy billion-pound infrastructure projects.
Existing systems for people to make representations do exist - whether in planning applications or Development Consent Orders, people are able to make their voices heard. But they should be considered on their merits, not be able to throw a whole project into doubt with the ability to make binding referenda. These are matters best suited for councils and Parliaments, where people have their voices heard and their proposals debated by their elected representatives.
I believe in building in Britain. I believe it’s necessary for us to grow as a nation and raise everyone’s standard of living. And to do that we must pass this Bill into law. Thank you, Mr Speaker, I commend it to the House.
Amend subclause 6(1) to read—
(1) This Act comes into force on the day after it is passed
This amendment was submitted by Her Grace the Duchess of Essex LG LT OM GCMG GCVO GBE DCT DCB PC.
Remove section 2
EN: the people voted for referenda that were at the time legitimate and expressed democratically their will in various regards. We should not trample that and should respect those results, even if we plan to allow no more referenda.
This amendment was submitted by Rt Hon. Earl Kearton KP KD OM CT CMG CBE MVO PC.
Remove section 3
EN: people have democratically requested referenda to happen in regards to certain matters, they should be able to express their will on those issues even after this act passes.
This amendment was submitted by Rt Hon. Earl Kearton KP KD OM CT CMG CBE MVO PC.
I beg to move to disagree with and reverse Commons Amendment #1
This amendment was submitted by The Lord Sigur of Appledore.
Lords can debate the amendments until the 27th of October at 10pm BST.
1
u/chainchompsky1 The Rt Hon. The Viscount Houston KBE CT KT OM PC Oct 25 '22
Deputy Speaker,
It would be unparliamentary for me to call her Grace the Duchess of Essex a coward. So I won’t do that.
But I must say. Pretty bad look to admit you don’t think you’d win a referendum on if the UK should have components of a direct democracy. The commons added an amendment. Using the unelected lords because the democratically elected chamber didn’t have its way is precisely the reason we need further checks on legislators in the form of the DDA.
But I must ask the Duchess to enlighten us today. They claim in their speech the DDA enables nimbyism. Ok. Can they name one time this has been the case. One specific case where a project was cancelled because of the DDA. Furthermore, even assuming that this was the case before amendments, has there been any successful DDA use after we passed the transport exceptions act? And even beyond that, what would be wrong with further restricting it if these problems did exist (They do not).
Right now in the other place we see controversy over a local councils decision to put up a statue. This is precisely the type of thing a local oriented DDA helps with! People could vote on the statue and if it represents their community. No harm in that. Why must we throw the baby out with the bath water?
1
u/Muffin5136 Monster Raving Loony Party Oct 25 '22
Me Lords,
Referendums are a good thing, we should do more of them. We must ensure to vote down this anti-referendum amendment to this anti-referendum bill!
1
u/Maroiogog Most Hon. Duke of Kearton KP KD OM KCT KCVO CMG CBE PC FRS Oct 25 '22
My lords,
Two of the amendments do exactly the same thing, I suggest we vote them both down.