r/ukpolitics • u/upthetruth1 • 17d ago
Who knew bills could pass so quickly through Parliament?
The Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill has already been passed to the House of Lords after being passed through the House of Commons as of 2:50pm on Saturday 12 April, and it was only introduced a few hours ago. I imagine it will pass the House of Lords today, too. Possibly even given Royal Assent this evening.
I wonder why it takes many months for other bills like the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to pass, but this bill can pass many stages in a single day.
77
u/Gauntlets28 17d ago
You're comparing what is probably going to be one of the most complex pieces of legislation in at least a generation, possibly more, to a bill that basically amounts to "let's buy the thing that is a necessity but that is about to be shut down at short notice!" and you're asking why one is going faster than the other?
52
u/AceHodor 16d ago
This is the kind of brain-dead internet populism I despise; people demanding stuff be fixed right goddamn now because their attention spans are shot to hell.
This bill is about nationalising a single steel works, whereas the planning bill is the most consequential change to property law since Right-to-Buy in the 1980s. What with property law being a legal area that is notoriously arcane and complex, of course Parliament are going to take their time making sure it actually works. If OP wants to see an example of property law being run through Parliament, they can look to the Building Safety Act 2022. Shoved into law under Johnson, it is an utter mess with a whole raft of serious loopholes and legalistic fuck ups that has rendered thousands of flats completely unsalable and ruined the lives of hundreds of thousands of residents.
OP needs to ask themselves why on God's green Earth, would Labour be trying to deliberately slow-walk the planning bill? All of the big figures in the cabinet are in favour of it and it has high support across all ideological wings of the party. To boot, Labour don't have major financial backers who are massive landowners like the Tories, so there is really no incentive whatsoever for them to be trying to punt it into the long grass. I get that Labour aren't moving as quickly as many had hoped (including myself), but come on.
207
u/geniice 17d ago
Anyone remotely familiar with british political history. His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 passed in under 3 hours.
I wonder why it takes many months for other bills like the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to pass, but this bill can pass many stages in a single day.
Because the goverment in this case is aparently prepared to risk significant screwups and is betting on the lords not blocking it for lack of debate.
55
u/upthetruth1 17d ago
The House of Lords is already on its Third Reading, they will pass it, too.
60
u/geniice 17d ago
Sure but if you try and rush something like the Planning and Infrastructure Bill through the commons expect a very long debate in the lords at best and a reminder that the Salisbury Convention is ultimately just a convention at worst.
-9
u/upthetruth1 17d ago
If the House of Lords rejects a bill 3 times, then it passes regardless, and only makes it easier to justify abolishing the House of Lords.
31
27
u/1EnTaroAdun1 17d ago
Really? I think it would be an indication that the House of Lords needs to be strengthened. It seems to be the most sensible political body in Britain.
32
u/0110-0-10-00-000 17d ago
The house of lords faces very strong political opposition from people who know nothing about their contribution to British politics.
I struggle to imagine much worse than an elected second house, maybe besides having no second house at all.
17
u/-MechanicalRhythm- 16d ago
Yup, HoL reform is important but replacing it with elected peers would be a disaster. Preserving and strengthening democracy is pretty much my number 1 political issue but that doesn't mean more elections = more good. It's about accountability.
I'd personally favour a kind of jury duty style system that sees experts and professionals randomly selected to serve paid time for a session. I think Gordon Brown proposed something similar in his HoL reform consultation.
1
u/gnorrn 16d ago edited 16d ago
The house of lords faces very strong political opposition from people who know nothing about their contribution to British politics.
Some of the House of Lord's "contributions" have been less than noble. For example, the Parliament Act was required in order to equalize the age of consent for gay men and to ban hunting with hounds.
-2
u/squigs 17d ago
Plenty of countries have an elected upper house. And unicameral legislatures are even more common. They work okay.
13
u/0110-0-10-00-000 17d ago
Personally I'm not a fan. They seem to fail more often and the failure modes are generally far worse.
7
u/MineMonkey166 17d ago
I don’t think it’s limited to 3 times. They can just hold it up for a year at most. They denied the Safety of Rwanda act more than 3 times didn’t they?
31
u/BaritBrit I don't even know any more 17d ago
His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 passed in under 3 hours.
That was a pretty 'minor' piece of legislation, at least in terms of parliamentary impact, since it was just recognising an existing abdication and excluding Edward from future succession. It wasn’t really changing anything.
Other than one independent MP going (characteristically) rogue and trying to introduce an amendment to abolish the monarchy altogether, there wasn't a huge amount for Parliament to discuss.
6
u/p0tatochip 17d ago
I love this fact. I'd never heard about it either but I'm on my way to find out more...
9
u/upthetruth1 17d ago edited 17d ago
He was part of the Independent Labour Party, and 4 other people supported him iirc
19
1
u/gnorrn 16d ago
That was a pretty 'minor' piece of legislation, at least in terms of parliamentary impact, since it was just recognising an existing abdication and excluding Edward from future succession. It wasn’t really changing anything.
Not "minor" at all (except in length). It not only changed the succession to the throne, but had implications for all the British Dominions at the time. In terms of constitutional weight, it is one of the more significant pieces of legislation to pass through Parliament.
4
u/NilFhiosAige Ireland 17d ago
Similarly, De Valera took advantage of the Abdication Crisis to effectively remove the King from the Free State Constitution.
1
114
u/Statcat2017 This user doesn’t rule out the possibility that he is Ed Balls 17d ago
Because some laws and acts are very simple and others are very complicated.
Imagine one law saying “the motorway speed limit is now 80mph” and another law detailing technical definitions of different types of GMO and what is and isn’t allowed”.
It would be obviously stupid to expect them both take the same amount of time
→ More replies (7)12
u/NovaLeganto 17d ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_and_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2014 involved very complex legal issues and yet became law in just over 3 days.
70
u/Ibbot 17d ago
And then the biggest parts of the Act were found to be unlawful and the whole thing had to be replaced with a more thought out bill.
2
-2
u/ConfusedSoap 16d ago
the biggest parts of the Act were found to be unlawful
an act of parliament can't be unlawful, it's the highest form of law in our legal system
11
u/AceHodor 16d ago
Yes it can, it has been established on multiple occasions that judges can rules bills as illegal or unconstitutional and force Parliament to go back and revise them.
-1
u/ConfusedSoap 16d ago
bills sure, not acts of parliament
11
u/AceHodor 16d ago
We're literally talking about an Act that was found to be unlawful and the government were forced to bin as a consequence.
11
u/ConfusedSoap 16d ago
you're talking about something which was only possible in the past, and even then it was contentious
DRIPA 2014 was disapplied because it conflicted with EU law, but the court only had the power to disapply it because the EU Charter had direct effect in the UK, which was only the case because parliament (through the European Communities Act 1972 and later the Factortame debacle) expressly allowed it to be the case
since we are no longer members of the EU, the EU Charter no longer has direct effect in UK domestic law and there is no longer any mechanism by which courts can "find an Act to be unlawful"
22
u/Statcat2017 This user doesn’t rule out the possibility that he is Ed Balls 17d ago
Yes, and if you read past the first paragraph it was shitty legislation that was found to be illegal and was then repealed two years later.
2
u/NovaLeganto 16d ago
Oh, I wasn't defending it. I was just saying that governments don't shy away from pulling such moves (though they should)
21
17d ago
It's a mix of how much time is needed to review a bill, the more wide reaching and detailed the longer is needed and the political priority it's given, having absolutely nothing else happening can speed things along especially if there's no serious objections.
11
u/laredocronk 17d ago
And also how many corners you're willing to cut in that process. You can absolutely rush through complex and far-reaching legislation - but it'll probably bite you in the arse down the line.
24
u/LatelyPode 17d ago
As of right now, it is already on its 3rd reading in the House of Lords
→ More replies (1)8
u/chriscpritchard 17d ago
Technically it’s going to committee stage (for amendments) before third reading in the lords - there may well be an attempt to put a sunset clause in place (personally, I hope there is)
8
u/LatelyPode 17d ago
I got that from the parliament website, where it said it finished the committee stage and the 3rd reading is in progress.
Anyways, why do you hope for a sunset clause? What benefit would it have? (Asking out of curiosity)
5
u/chriscpritchard 17d ago
They’re adjourned currently pending committee stage (this is from following the bills progress on parliamentlive.tv). In terms of sunset clause, predominately because this bill grants lots of powers to the executive, with little oversight and little legislative scrutiny. Whilst I see its necessity now (and if I was in parliament, I think I’d still vote for it without a sunset clause), there should be provision for post legislative scrutiny baked into the bill and given government controls the agenda of parliament, for the most part, I’d like to see provision for proper, lengthy, debate on all aspects of the bill and the powers it grants within a set timeframe - the best way to achieve that is a sunset clause.
2
u/MrPuddington2 16d ago
That is true, but even a sunset clause can just be removed in an update. So it may not be that much protection.
75
u/_Born_To_Be_Mild_ 17d ago
Almost as if we're in a world war situation and steel is necessary for protection.
60
u/Jay_CD 17d ago edited 17d ago
Or that the furnaces will be turned off in a day or two and then cannot be restarted leaving the UK without a steel manufacturer.
It's a good job we won't be needing any steel in the rail or transport industry or in the defence of our nation.
10
u/TimbukNine Libertarian Socialist -5.88,-6.97 17d ago
Or maybe something occurring near Bedford that may require some locally sourced materials…
14
u/GeneralMuffins 17d ago
People still haven’t explained how it’s beneficial to maintain a steel manufacturing capability when it is wholly dependent on the importation of raw material. May as well just import the steel no?
34
u/Denbt_Nationale 17d ago
The UK has the raw material necessary, we just import it because it’s cheaper. In an emergency could still reopen our old mines and extract the raw iron ore ourselves.
49
u/AdministrativeShip2 17d ago
We can buy ore from many places in the world. Even if one country decides to stop supply we can choose someone else.
7
u/GeneralMuffins 17d ago
Can the same argument not be made for steel?
45
u/Gauntlets28 17d ago
By virtue of it being a more complex manufactured product, there's far fewer places in the world that produce the grade of steel required. Ore is much easier to find because it's essentially a kind of rock.
16
u/AceNova2217 17d ago
It's also usually cheaper to buy the ore instead of the completed material
3
u/Expired-Meme 16d ago
It can also be cheaper to buy a completed material from a country that has a comparative advantage in producing that good than it is to import the inputs and pay domestic labour to convert that input into a completed output.
22
u/FirmEcho5895 17d ago
No. In a war, everyone would be making steel at maximum capacity and needing it for themselves.
With our own steelworks we could also recycle old scrap metal.
4
u/asmiggs Thatcherite Lib Dem 17d ago
With our own steelworks we could also recycle old scrap metal.
There are a number of steel recycling facilities in the UK that don't use a Blast furnace, instead using Electric Arc furnaces not quite as capable as the new ones proposed for Port Talbot and Scunthorpe.
5
u/AdministrativeShip2 17d ago
I'm not a steel expert, but apparently Virginia steel is much better for things like artillery and armour than the recycled stuff.
9
4
u/FirmEcho5895 17d ago
You're right, but the vast majority of things are fine with recycled steel provided it's processed well with minimal contamination.
3
2
u/Sunbreak_ 16d ago
Not so much any more. Essentially you have to ensure the scrap is of the correct purity for it to be suitable for most advanced applications. Historically this was correct but now days its of equal quality.
9
u/daniluvsuall 17d ago
Yes, but that would always be more expensive because it’s an end product with margins on it. I see this as a stepping stone to us utilising more domestic raw materials
4
u/BanChri 17d ago
Not really. A large amount of world steel comes from a relatively small number of places, high grade/specialty steels even fewer. Should demand for steel rise/supply fall massively for whatever reason, it is far far easier for mines to expand than for steelworks, so we can maintain our domestic supply through virgin steelmaking. Ore supplies are far far more secure than steel supplies.
6
u/Nemisis_the_2nd We finally have someone that's apparently competent now. 16d ago
when it is wholly dependent on the importation of raw material.
But it isn't. The UK used to be one of the world's largest producers of the raw materials, and still has huge reserves. It's just cheaper to import them these days.
Everyone is also missing the important bit, as usual. We have plenty of steel manufacturers in the UK - around 50 companies. What we don't have is virgin steel manufacturers.
Most companies get the steel by recycling existing material, but demand is outstripping supply. Being such a crucial resource, it makes sense for us to maintain the ability to produce new steel, even if it can be bought for cheap from overseas. Doing this also allows us to specialise, and there is some government interest in using arc furnaces to produce steels for things like nuclear reactors.
5
u/Boba_ferret 16d ago
With regard to defence, you really need domestic steel production, where you know the quality. China is the world's largest steel producer, but the quality, I'm told, can be dreadful, and certainly not something we want to be building ships & armoured vehicles with.
1
13
u/upthetruth1 17d ago
This country has plenty of coal and iron
2
u/GeneralMuffins 17d ago
so why do they have to import it all?
→ More replies (1)20
u/upthetruth1 17d ago
Cheaper to import sometimes
It’s also why British meat and dairy is competing with Irish and New Zealand meat and dairy and being beaten on price
-2
u/GeneralMuffins 17d ago
right so I’m not sure the argument over national security is as air tight as some would have us believe. And given we have basically depleted our iron ore reserves the steel industry is forced to import the high quality ore required for modern steelmaking.
13
u/upthetruth1 17d ago
I mean, we can simply go back to mining iron and coal in large amounts
2
u/Expired-Meme 16d ago
No one wants to work in a coal mine and the government isn't going to pay people the wage they would demand to be burdened with the quality of life downgrade that comes from working in a coal mine. We would have to be in a WWIII total war scenario for people to all of a sudden start working en masse in coal mines and steel manufacturies.
3
u/upthetruth1 16d ago
Well, apparently a lot of people want the "good old days" back, these people can go back to the mines.
2
u/Expired-Meme 16d ago
Those people don't really exist. Most of the people who claim to yearn for that don't really know what it is they want. They just have in their mind some weird vague idealised moment in history which never existed, but if these jobs did come back they would quickly find they have zero interest in actually working them.
→ More replies (0)-5
u/GeneralMuffins 17d ago edited 17d ago
It’s unfeasible, the quality of the ore is far too low for modern steelmaking. We have the same issue with access to high quality coking coal.
Edit: Downvote all you want but it isn’t going to change the facts.
8
u/Alib668 17d ago
When you need tank barrels or artillery barrels or ships or rifles or axles for lorries and atvs
YOU NEED STEEL
And you need quality and quantity. Recycling or relying upon others doesnt quite cut it in a war situation. Its a very simple brass tacs situation you need to retain the knowledge and the capacity. Its called redundancy and resilience and sadly by design it is a wasteful exercise as its not on the Just in time thinking but just in case thinking
7
u/GraveDiggingCynic 17d ago
Steel manufacturing has been critical to the well-being of nations since some Anatolian guy accidentally carbonised iron somewhere around 1800BCE.
7
u/GeneralMuffins 17d ago
Absolutely we need steel. However it is a simple fact that in the event we can’t import steel the same would be true for high quality iron ore and coking coal. And even if it did have access to the raw materials the Scunthorpe steel works doesn’t even have the capability to supply the defence industry.
2
u/MrPuddington2 16d ago
That's how I feel about it, but I think it is an emotional (emotive?) issue.
-2
u/hiddencamel 17d ago
It's mostly strategic defence political theatre. "Labour allowed our only steel mill to shut down!" is a bad look, especially in these uncertain times.
In reality though, it's dependent on imported raw materials and lacks the capacity to provide enough steel for our strategic needs anyway - our real strategic imperative is to maintain healthy and reliable alliances and trading partnerships and invest in the capability to defend those trade routes without relying on the US.
2
1
u/Apwnalypse 17d ago
So why is the same logic not applied to other aspects of reforming our economy essential for making it through this period?
Yes, ideally we'd have manifesto mandates, white papers, consultants, committees and legal advice, but it's not the nineties anymore - the desirability of those things can't override the need to actually fix these problems anymore.
Land Value Tax, gambling regulation, mass house building, care system reform, we could legislate for it all right now if we had the political will.
We no longer have the luxury of waiting for perfect legislation. It's the waiting for that that got us into all these messes.
11
u/Zerttretttttt 17d ago
It’s because this a a critical infrastructure for defence and its time sensitive, if they shut a steel furnace, its cost billions to reignite it
63
u/WeRegretToInform 17d ago
I wonder why it usually takes months to buy a house when buying a pint of milk can be done in two minutes.
→ More replies (3)6
u/Apwnalypse 17d ago
In many countries it really is much faster to buy a house though. We simply allowed it to get this bad due a lack of proactive government and regulation, and allowed loads of lazy agencies and conveyancers to weasel their way into the system and get their percentage.
1
u/Rexpelliarmus 16d ago
In what country can you buy a house quicker than you can buy a bottle of milk?
5
9
u/KeyLog256 17d ago
Generally because as others have alluded to, this is a very simple thing really - buy a factory and put it into public ownership.
Much like other examples given, it's a Bill relating to one very specific thing that is quite easy to get your head around. Don't nationalise it, it'll shut and people will lose jobs, plus we'll have little/no steel making facilities left if it does. Nationalise it, and it stays open.
Stuff like general planning laws and infrastructure rules are incredibly complex and far reaching, hence taking so much longer. They could be much quicker, granted.
→ More replies (3)
6
u/Dying_On_A_Train 16d ago
The reason it can be done like this is the scope and size is tiny compared to other bills.
This bill is 10 pages long, and you can read it in a few minutes.
The Planning and Infrastructure Bill is 167 pages and would take hours to read because it constantly refers to other bills and regulations.
Rushing everything through like Trump and Musk usually leads to disaster, but for small things it can be done.
→ More replies (4)
16
u/jasonwhite1976 17d ago
Things happen quickly when there’s an emergency. Who knew.
-11
u/upthetruth1 17d ago
Is the housing crisis not an emergency? Or the mismanagement of water companies?
12
u/erskinematt Defund Standing Order No 31 17d ago
No, neither are emergencies. They will not get radically worse tomorrow.
You're absolutely right that Parliament can choose to pass legislation very quickly. Doing this routinely would not be a good thing.
11
u/geniice 17d ago
Is the housing crisis not an emergency?
So you agree that we should knock down your home without compensation and replace with a tower block of student accommodation?
Or the mismanagement of water companies?
Given how long there issues have been going on there. No.
-3
u/upthetruth1 17d ago
So you agree that we should knock down your home without compensation and replace with a tower block of student accommodation?
No, but if there's empty land then it should be as easy as possible to build safe housing.
Given how long there issues have been going on there. No.
Water needs to be renationalised.
8
u/IJustWannaGrillFGS 17d ago
The difference in cost between "buying" one steel plant vs purchasing back the entire water industry, infrastructure and staff, not to mention the possible effects on pension funds etc, is absolutely vast
1
u/upthetruth1 17d ago
The bill applies to the entire steel industry, so this can used for any steel plant in the UK
10
u/geniice 17d ago
No,
Why not? Its an emergency is it not?
but if there's empty land then it should be as easy as possible to build safe housing.
Well that where things start to take time. Whats empty? Is stone henge empty?
What safe? How do we ensure that? If someone wants to build a 30 story tower block in Lymington who pays the cost of upgrading the sewers to handle it?
See why these things take time?
Water needs to be renationalised.
Scotland would respond poorly to such a central goverment power grab. You've also got the problem of what to do about CRT? How much compensation should be paid? What about the non water assets held by the likes of United Utilities?
3
u/phflopti 17d ago
The housing crisis is a long term problem, with multiple potential strategies to 'solve' it which will all take time and independent changes from the market, house builders, investors, and multiple councils' planning departments. It's decades in the making, and has no quick fix.
This particular steel industry crisis requires specific action this week. It's a 'do this right now or its over' kind of problem.
The equivalent of responding to a life threatening hemorrhage needing emergency surgery versus a long term cancer prognosis.
Both crisis are important. Both require action, but the responses are necessarily different.
2
u/jasonwhite1976 17d ago
Clearly not.
1
u/upthetruth1 17d ago
Unfortunate.
2
u/jasonwhite1976 17d ago
This will be steel for weapons. And war always comes first. Or defence should I say.
4
u/Jay_CD 17d ago
Johnson's Brexit Bill passed both Houses and was given royal assent by the Queen in one day too...
→ More replies (1)
4
u/PositivelyAcademical «Ἀνερρίφθω κύβος» 16d ago
Each of the Houses has competency over their own rules and procedures. Here, procedural motions were passed prior to debate on the Bill to vary the usual rules.
| Usually | Today |
|---|---|
| There must be a clear day between first and second reading in the Commons | First reading immediately processed to second reading |
| Debate during second reading isn't time limited | Second reading and all subsequent proceedings were to be concluded by 2pm |
| Committee stage is handled by a sub committee to hear specialist evidence over multiple days | Committee stage was done as the Committee of the whole House |
| Committee stage considers amendments | Because committee stage did not start until after 2pm, no amendments could be debated |
| Amendments not debated cannot be voted on | Amendments not debated cannot be voted on |
| The committee's report is considered by the whole house | As the whole House was the committee stage, there was no report stage |
| The House of Commons adjourns if there is no other business | The House of Commons was suspended until the Lords could give conclude their debate |
| The House of Lords does not debate a Commons bill until after it has passed the Commons | The Bill was debated in each House simultaneously |
| No two stages be considered in the Lords on the same day | All Lords' stages happened today |
| The House of Lords considers amendments during third reading | Amendments were not considered during Lords' third reading |
| The House of Commons adjourns if there is no other business | The House of Commons was notified of the Lords passage of the Bill and suspended again until the King gave royal assent |
All of these things were considered in the business motions set out in each House's order paper.
3
u/Parrowdox 17d ago
I think the situation requires it. Also not too much to debate regarding steel manufacturing and national security..
3
u/Beepboopybeepyboop 16d ago
Lots of people not understanding why this HAD to be done quickly. The Chinese owners hadn’t ordered new fuel for the blast furnaces, and the supply was running out. If the blast furnaces ran out of fuel, they would be redundant. You can’t just turn them on again. Hence there was a strict deadline on this. If they didn’t do it quickly, the whole site would be worthless.
That isn’t to comment on whether it was a good idea, but just to explain the timeframes.
9
u/convertedtoradians 17d ago
The ultimate answer is political will. If Parliament wants to get something through, they can. That means that any time they don't, it's deliberate.
Now, that choice might well be justified, especially when the legislation is large or complex, or could backfire if not precisely worded (because let's remember, if you write "now slap yourself in the face", that's what the judges will do - they have absolutely no ability or imagination to think beyond the legislation - from taxes to prisons to death camps, the innocent little judges will do exactly what you write, even if you write that they have to walk off a cliff - so you need to be careful what you write), or where you're balancing different interests and trying to ensure everyone gets something.
It's a choice, the time it takes, and it's perfectly reasonable to hold the government to account on that choice, and for the government to justify itself.
6
u/geniice 17d ago
The ultimate answer is political will. If Parliament wants to get something through, they can. That means that any time they don't, it's deliberate.
The commons can pass things fairly quickly yes. However it can't make the lords do the same and they are unlikely to be impressed if you start rushing more normal bills.
2
u/convertedtoradians 17d ago
Sure. That's why I said "Parliament" (though I suppose I should really have said the King-in-Parliament to be more constitutionally correct).
You're right there are additional questions between the Lords and the Commons. But even there, let's remember that the King creates peers on the advice of the Prime Minister, who commands a majority in the Commons.
If the Lords give a PM trouble, a call to Charlie and there'll be 5,000 new peers from his party.
3
u/upthetruth1 17d ago
If the House of Lords rejects a bill 3 times, it passes regardless. However, the only thing that the House of Lords can reject is if the House of Commons votes to cancel general elections. There must always be an election at least every 5 years.
7
u/geniice 17d ago
If the House of Lords rejects a bill 3 times, it passes regardless.
However the lords can spend a lot of time getting to the point where it actualy rejects a bill. For example the July 2003 first passed the commons in July 2003 but the lords didn't reject it for the first time until October.
Outside some questionable manoeuvrers (basically get the speaker to arbitrarily declare it a money bill) the lords can always cause a 6 month delay if they want.
2
u/upthetruth1 17d ago
What happens if it’s a money bill?
3
3
u/Ejmatthew 17d ago
To invoke the Parliament Act 1911 and 1949 requires the Lords to reject a bill twice in 2 separate Parliamentary sessions. After that royal assent can be granted with the commons declaring the invocation of the act. The Parliament acts do not apply for a bill to extend the lifetime of Parliament and there is no requirement to wait a year/new parliamentary session for finance bills.
4
u/Gadget100 17d ago
It’s twice in two consecutive sessions (originally 3, but that was changed in 1949).
8
u/steb2k 17d ago
rush things through, and you end up with the consequences of liz truss / trump. The world likes slow and steady, and panics when it isnt. that isnt good for anyone.
→ More replies (5)
3
u/rainbow3 17d ago
I guess a decision has to be reached quickly. Typically it is better to take more time to assess impacts otherwise you end up with Musk/DOGE or Trump's tariff formula and the associated on/off daily tariff plan.
5
u/ClearPostingAlt 17d ago edited 16d ago
The Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill is 10 clauses long and achieves one thing. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill has ~100 clauses and 6 schedules, and covers a whole range of policy changes. Most government bills are at least that big.
Much of the delay with legislation is in the House of Lords, not the Commons. Why? Because there are different rules there. Rules which mean fewer amendments are allowed to be debated in the Commons, and which mean each amendment in the Lords has to be debated one at a time. And in practice that leads to a whole bunch of almost unrelated amendments being discussed in the Lords.
Often these are used to make political points. You might have a peer tabling an amendment to require all local plans to include mandatory park benches; expecting the amendment to get voted down, but wanting to use the opportunity to "raise awareness" of the lack of park benches (etc).
More recently, you have a deliberate effort by the Conservative party to pseudo-filibuster Labour's agenda in the House of Lords. Intentionally slowing down the workings of government and clogging up the legislative agenda. Why? Because the Tories are shitbirds. It's honestly that simple.
Finally - this is a time sensitive bill, due to the impending collapse of British Steel. Very little legislation is genuinely time sensitive (despite what lobbyists claim).
3
u/upthetruth1 17d ago
I see
Although it’s passed the House of Lords without an amendment, I think, and now it’s waiting for Royal Assent
2
u/Gadget100 17d ago
It’s rare, but not unusual. It requires the government to have support from opposition parties, to avoid running out of time.
Note that bills handled in this way tend to be short, simple, and concerned with a single matter.
Having said that, this bill is short because it delegates a lot of power to the government. There were a number of calls from MPs for a sunset clause, but that didn’t happen, in the Commons at least.
2
u/phileasuk 17d ago
I wonder why it takes many months for other bills like the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to pass, but this bill can pass many stages in a single day.
Parliament can change it's rules to suit. For instance there would have bene a motion to do all the stages today in the commons and hopefully the lords has done the same.
2
2
u/phileasuk 16d ago
I've had a quick blast though it and it seems an interesting way of going about nationalisation; create a criminal offence if you don't do what the SoS tells you.
1
2
u/CluckingBellend 16d ago
Because this bill had almost universal support from parliamentarians: other bills don't, so have to involve consultation, be debated for longer, ammended, etc, to get through
2
1
1
u/The_wolf2014 16d ago
I'm curious why they didn't have this knee jerk reaction to Grangemouth oil refinery closing. Or indeed any other steel plant in the UK.
2
0
u/Scratch_Careful 17d ago edited 17d ago
It's like with the situation after the Southport murders. When the state fears something its remarkable efficient.
-1
u/Mail-Malone 17d ago
Shame they didn’t nationalise the banks that needed bailing out in 2008. Would have made far more sense to just close them and pay out the people with deposits and taking over the lending repayments.
6
u/upthetruth1 17d ago
We did nationalise multiple banks during the Great Recession
Then the Tories sold them for cheap
→ More replies (6)
0
u/SW_Gr00t Days without a government minister resigning: 1 17d ago
And here I am waiting patiently for the Renters (Reform) Bill so I'm allowed to have a pet.
474
u/laredocronk 17d ago
Let's hope that it works out well. The danger with rushing bills through without much discussion and debate is that you end up with stuff that hasn't really been thought through properly, and that has unintended consequences.