[TheCrackInTime]

B442 - Devolution Bill, TSR Labour

Devolution Act - Labour
This bill intends to forge ever stronger the United Kingdom and the relationships of the constituent peoples by granting them the powers to affect their local community while re-establishing their standing with respect to all other constituent peoples via equality of powers. In doing so, it intends to reduce the powers of central government and create a community based, locally focused government that can allow the United Kingdom and its constituent peoples to face a brighter future.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

Part I: The Regional Assemblies.

1. The Regional Assemblies

(1) A regional assembly is to be established for the following regions of the United Kingdom;

(a) Northern Ireland;
(b) The North East of England;
(c) Wales —

(i) The Welsh Assembly may also be referred to as Cynulliad Cymru;

(d) The South West of England;
(e) Yorkshire and the Humber;
(f) The West Midlands;
(g) The East of England;
(h) The North West of England;
(i) Greater London;
(j) The South East of England.

(2) At each Assembly Election, a number of Assembly Members (AMs) proportional to 1 per 45,000 members of the population but dependant on Section 4, are to be returned for each Regional Assembly by the method of Proportional Representation, using the D'Hondt system to allocate seats. In the event the D'Hondt calculation requires it, additional seats may be added.
(3) The validity of any proceedings of the Parliament is not affected by any vacancy in its membership.
(4) The Assemblies are to be determined using Appendix I.
(5) A simple majority of votes is required to pass a measure through Parliament, dependent on Section 4.

2. Assembly Elections

(1) The day on which the poll at the first ordinary general election for membership of the Parliament shall be held, and the day, time and place for the meeting of the Parliament following that poll, shall be appointed by order made by the Secretary of State on behalf of Monarch.
(2) The poll at subsequent ordinary general elections shall be held with Royal Assent on the first Monday in May in the fourth calendar year following that in which the previous ordinary general election was held, excepting —
(a) on occasion upon which a majority of the voting Assembly Members vote for a motion calling for the immediate dissolution of the Assembly (henceforth referred to as a Dissolution Motion). If this is the case, a poll for general election must be called to take place on the nearest Saturday, with immediate affect.
(3) In the event of an election, the Parliament—

(a) is dissolved by virtue of this section at the beginning of the minimum period which ends with that day, and
(b) shall meet within the period of seven days beginning immediately after the day of the poll.

3. Formation of Assembly Government.

(1) There shall be a First Minister as the head of an executive government for each Assembly.
(2) At the beginning of each Assembly term, or in the event that there is currently no First Minister, potential First Ministers must put themselves before the House for a motion of affirmation (henceforth known as an Affirmation Motion).
(3) To become First Minister and form the government, potential First Ministers must have their Affirmation Motion pass.
(4) In the event that multiple Affirmation Motions pass, the selected First Minister is the one who received the greatest majority in their Affirmation Motion.
(5) Section 3. is dependant upon section 4.

4. Exceptions Regarding Northern Ireland

(1) For a measure to pass in the Northern Ireland Assembly, it requires the support of the majority of the Assembly as a whole, the support of the majority of the designated Nationalists, and the support of the majority of the designated Unionists. Without meeting these three criteria, a measure cannot pass.
(2) Northern Ireland appoints two First Ministers.
(3) The First Ministers submit a joint Affirmation Motion, one may not pass without the other.
(4) In the events that one of the First Ministers should vacate his position, the other First Minister also immediately vacates his position.
(5) There are to be a number of Northern Ireland Assembly members proportional to 1 per 22,500 members of the population.

Part II: Funding and Taxation

1. Regional Taxation

(1) Regional Assemblies have the power to create a local income tax of up to fifteen (15) pence on the pound.
(2) Regional Assemblies have the power to create a local sales tax up to five (5) pence on the pound.
(3) Regional Assemblies have the power to create a local corporation tax of up to ten (10) pence on the pound.
(4) Parliament has absolute authority on the creation or dissolution of taxes.
(5) The corporation tax rate of the United Kingdom shall be 19%.

2. Funding

(1) Regional Assemblies receive all of the money they have collected through their own local taxation.
(2) In addition, each Regional Assembly shall receive an amount of money determined by Parliament as appropriate to their needs, distributed by Parliament in the Budget.

Part III: Powers of the Assemblies and of Parliament

1. Powers of the Model House of Commons.

(1) The Model House of Commons (Parliament) shall have authority for all matters intraregional, and in addition: Defence of the Realm, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Political and Constitutional Reform, Equalities, Local Government, International Development, Education and all those matters which would affect those below and including the age of 16.
(2) The Model House of Commons shall have the authority to alter the constitutional status of the Assembles, provided any changes made affect all equally, excepting the Northern Ireland Assembly, which may be altered independently. For any such constitutional changes to be passed, they must be subjected to a referendum.
(3) The Model House of Commons may pass Bills-to-be-Referred, which, should they be passed by the Model House of Commons but are outside its authority, are referred to the relevant Regional Assembly. Appendix II details the relevant styles.

2. Powers of the Regional Assemblies

(1) The Assemblies possess authority in the following areas, provided they are fully interregional and are not relevant to those below and including the age of 16: Business, Innovation and Skills, Work and Pensions, Energy and Climate Change, Health, Communities, Transport, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Culture, Language and Sport.

(a) The Scottish Assembly shall have authority for the Scottish Justice System.
(b) The Northern Ireland Assembly shall have authority for the Northern Justice Legal System.
(c) The remaining Assemblies shall share responsibility for the Justice System of England and Wales.
(d) The Northern Ireland Assembly shall have authority for Policing and Northern Irish Affairs.

Part IV: Dissolution of the Extant Systems

1. The Mayor of London

(1) All Acts pertaining to the Mayor of London are hereby rescinded.
(2) All powers formerly held by the Mayor of London are now held by the First Minister for London.

2. The Scottish Parliament

(1) All previous acts referring to the Scottish Parliament now refer to the Scottish Assembly.

Part V: Commencement, Title, and Extent

1. Commencement, Title, and Extent

(1) This Bill may be cited as the Devolution Act 2012;
(2) This Bill shall come into force immediately following Royal Assent, and —
(3) This Act extends to the United Kingdom.

Appendix I

(1) The Assembly of Northern Ireland shall consist of the historic counties of County Antrim, County Armagh, County Down, County Fermanagh, County Londonderry, and County Tyrone.

(a) County Londonderry may be referred to as County Derry.

(2) The Assembly of the North East of England shall consist of the historic counties of Northumberland, Tyne & Wear, and Durham.
(3) The Assembly of the South West of England shall consist of the historic counties of Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Dorset, and Wiltshire.
(4) The Assembly of Yorkshire and the Humber shall consist of the historic counties of Yorkshire, North Riding, East Riding, and West Riding.
(5) The Assembly of the West Midlands shall consist of the historic counties of Shropshire, Staffordshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Warwickshire, and Gloucestershire.
(6) The Assembly of the East of England shall consist of the historic counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, Essex and Suffolk.
(7) The Assembly of the North West of England shall consist of the historic counties of Cumberland, Westmorland, Lancashire, and Cheshire.
(8) The Assembly of Greater London shall consist of the historic counties of London and Middlesex.
(9) The Assembly of the South East of England shall consist of the historic counties of Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire, Berkshire, Oxfordshire, and Buckinghamshire.

Appendix II

(1) Acts of the Model House of Commons which fall under the authority of the Regional Assemblies require the following styles;

(a) “This Bill shall come into force [relevant date] following Royal Assent and Regional Assent,” and “ This Act extends to the United Kingdom.” in the case that the Act would affect all Regional Assemblies, or;
(b) “This Bill shall come into force [relevant date] following Royal Assent and the Assent of the Assembly/Assemblies of [relevant regions]”, and “This Act extends to the Assemblies/Assemblies of [relevant regions]”.

[DebatingGreg]

Aye, a good bill.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

Err, no. You cannot simply impose devolution on people, you must first ask the people whether they want it. Otherwise, lovely rehash of one of my old bills - really showing initiative here Labour.

[TopHat]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Err, no. You cannot simply impose devolution on people, you must first ask the people whether they want it.

We'd have done a referendum, but you can't do region-by-region polls on TSR as there's no way of ascertaining which areas which posters come from.

Otherwise, lovely rehash of one of my old bills - really showing initiative here Labour.

Hardly. This is a considerably more detailed and thorough work. Can't help but notice yours was a rehash of the 1998 Scotland Act.

[JPKC]

There're too many powers granted to the regions in this Bill, it would seriously impede the ability of central government to deliver coherent and national policies. For instance, I believe the NHS shouldn't just be national in scope, but also in practice - there shouldn't be massive disparities in treatment, a thing that the provisions here would worsen.

Regional assemblies would reject laws for partisan reasons, it would just add another layer of potential gridlock when certain councils accept an Act while neighbouring regions reject it. Reform to public services would be very difficult, look at the USA for instance - the law is scattered.

I would support this if the new assemblies usurped the role of local government completely, otherwise there's just an extra tier to waste money on. Likewise, the election schedule should be perhaps two yearly and held exclusively during weekends - why not have two days of polling? Finally, the assemblies should only be able to resist a national law if they vote it down with, say, a 2/3rds majority of all MRAs.

What I really like about this Bill is that it seems a step backwards from nationalism, which is a pleasant surprise given you lot.

[CyclopsRock]

Who cares if it creates gridlock? As long as the local reps are voted in, it's up to their electorates to punish legislators who act against their wishes. We shouldn't work on the assumption that local legislators will **** everything up and therefore can't be trusted (unlike the mighty central government).

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by TopHat)
We'd have done a referendum, but you can't do region-by-region polls on TSR as there's no way of ascertaining which areas which posters come from.

That is really irrelevant. We held an EU referendum and that didn't stop Americans or Canadians voting in it. It's just an excuse. Besides which, we aren't really going to hold the referendums are we!

By the way, your attitude isn't really necessary. I agree with the bill's intentions, I just find the imposition of it problematic and the familiarity of sections of the bill amusing. Or I could just leave, you'd probably prefer that.

[toronto353]

I agree with Adorno. We shouldn't just force devolution on people. Doing so without their consent will cause further apathy with the system because they won't bother to vote for representatives for something that they don't agree with and will split this country even further.


I also think, TopHat, that this will put off new members writing Bills as it complicates matters and weren't you arguing for making it easier for new people to get involved? On the note of repeals, this Bill embodies the reason why the GRA didn't work - because this Bill is effectively an old Bill with a little bit more added.

No from me based on both reasons, but primarily the first reason.

[JPKC]

(Original post by CyclopsRock)
Who cares if it creates gridlock? As long as the local reps are voted in, it's up to their electorates to punish legislators who act against their wishes. We shouldn't work on the assumption that local legislators will **** everything up and therefore can't be trusted (unlike the mighty central government).

I think we should work on the basis that all politicians have a tendency to **** things up, especially the 'local' ones. The more the messy.

[CyclopsRock]

(Original post by JPKC)
I think we should work on the basis that all politicians have a tendency to **** things up, especially the 'local' ones. The more the messy.

Therefore supporting the notion of devolving responsibility, as much as possible, down to the individual!

I knew you'd come around.

[JPKC]

(Original post by CyclopsRock)
Therefore supporting the notion of devolving responsibility, as much as possible, down to the individual!

I knew you'd come around.

What's to say that individuals are any less feckless than politicians? The fewer people making decisions that affect others the better. We should just give up and have some brood of philosopher-kings prancing ideas about from on high.

Yesterday I read several statuses of Facebook each undermining any portion of faith I had in democracy being founded on anything more than what qualifies as the biggest "LOL". If I run as an independent next time I'll put some funny cat pictures in my manifesto, or a Doctor Who reference, and sweep the floor.

[CyclopsRock]

(Original post by JPKC)
What's to say that individuals are any less feckless than politicians? The fewer people making decisions that affect others the better. We should just give up and have some brood of philosopher-kings prancing ideas about from on high.

Yesterday I read several statuses of Facebook each undermining any portion of faith I had in democracy being founded on anything more than what qualifies as the biggest "LOL". If I run as an independent next time I'll put some funny cat pictures in my manifesto, or a Doctor Who reference, and sweep the floor.

Well, individuals deciding for themselves might not be more inclined to be right but they do have the virtue of a) having the choice themselves, not imposed upon them and b) not having to please a multitude of people with one decision (unless they're schitzo nutters). If they fail to please themselves, they're either change their decision next time, or live on masochistically harming themselves - whatever, it's no skin off my nose. When a politician does the same, it IS a problem for me, because I can't change their mind for them, and it's me that their decision affects.

[Jarred]

I'm quite a fan of localism so will consider voting in favour of this bill.
I certainly do like the idea of transferring powers away from central government to local government, but one problem I do have is that whether creating a whole new layer of government is the right solution. I think perhaps transferring control over to local councils; to skip out the assembly step completely, would be a better move.
One thing that does anger me though is the West Lothian question, I think devolution should either happen equally and completely or it just shouldn't happen at all and this bill addresses and fixes that. There are great inconsistencies now with the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies existing with no local representation given to the regions of England. And I'm glad that this bill would split the assemblies into regions of England rather than just one big English parliament as is often advocated by some of the real life political parties. I wouldn't really wanna share an assembly with the North

[Moleman1996]

No, too many assemblys being considered. Should be Northern England, Southern England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland.

[JPKC]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
No, too many assemblys being considered. Should be Northern England, Southern England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland.

Needless to say that that would create huge disparities in the number of people represented by each assembly.

[Mr Dangermouse]

Would prefer an English parliament but better than nothing.

[TopHat]

(Original post by Jarred)
I'm quite a fan of localism so will consider voting in favour of this bill.
I certainly do like the idea of transferring powers away from central government to local government, but one problem I do have is that whether creating a whole new layer of government is the right solution. I think perhaps transferring control over to local councils; to skip out the assembly step completely, would be a better move.
One thing that does anger me though is the West Lothian question, I think devolution should either happen equally and completely or it just shouldn't happen at all and this bill addresses and fixes that. There are great inconsistencies now with the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies existing with no local representation given to the regions of England. And I'm glad that this bill would split the assemblies into regions of England rather than just one big English parliament as is often advocated by some of the real life political parties. I wouldn't really wanna share an assembly with the North

Thank you. I've worked hard on this bill and I'd love to hear as much constructive criticism as possible - this would save the Union and give people greater control over their communities, so I'd love to see it pass.

(Original post by Moleman1996)
No, too many assemblys being considered. Should be Northern England, Southern England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland.

They are the sizes they are so that the populations are comparable. "Southern England" would dominate the Union and you'd see the same London-centric politics you do now.

(Original post by toronto353)
I agree with Adorno. We shouldn't just force devolution on people. Doing so without their consent will cause further apathy with the system because they won't bother to vote for representatives for something that they don't agree with and will split this country even further.

I will happily put in a TSR referendum, then.

I also think, TopHat, that this will put off new members writing Bills as it complicates matters and weren't you arguing for making it easier for new people to get involved? On the note of repeals, this Bill embodies the reason why the GRA didn't work - because this Bill is effectively an old Bill with a little bit more added.

The styles are as simple as I could make them, and I'm currently drafting a "How to Write a Bill" guide, so I don't think it should interfere. Additionally, I think this exemplifies why the GRA did work - I was not here for the last Act (which was a Federal Act, incidentally, so actually some strong differences). For me, this is an entirely new debate, and an important one for me. I am interested to hear everyone's responses. Being unable to discuss this would have reduced my enjoyment of the MHoC.

No from me based on both reasons, but primarily the first reason.[/QUOTE]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
That is really irrelevant. We held an EU referendum and that didn't stop Americans or Canadians voting in it. It's just an excuse. Besides which, we aren't really going to hold the referendums are we!

I can stick a TSR Devolution Referendum in if you want.

(Original post by JPKC)
There're too many powers granted to the regions in this Bill, it would seriously impede the ability of central government to deliver coherent and national policies. For instance, I believe the NHS shouldn't just be national in scope, but also in practice - there shouldn't be massive disparities in treatment, a thing that the provisions here would worsen.

Regional assemblies would reject laws for partisan reasons, it would just add another layer of potential gridlock when certain councils accept an Act while neighbouring regions reject it. Reform to public services would be very difficult, look at the USA for instance - the law is scattered.

I was aware this could be a problem, which is why I added the clause;

"The Model House of Commons (Parliament) shall have authority for all matters intraregional".

This is a Bill of Devolution, not Federalism - we're absolutely not copying the US system here. Ultimately, the MHoC is still the ultimate arbiter. Given the NHS, as a National, rather than Regional, Health Service, would count as interregional, the MHoC still has authority where it wants. Does this satisfy that problem?

I would support this if the new assemblies usurped the role of local government completely, otherwise there's just an extra tier to waste money on. Likewise, the election schedule should be perhaps two yearly and held exclusively during weekends - why not have two days of polling? Finally, the assemblies should only be able to resist a national law if they vote it down with, say, a 2/3rds majority of all MRAs.

Do you remember how I said we had two major bills along the way? This is the first, and as it happens, the second is a vast and comprehensive reform of local government (the abolition district and county councils and the creation of unitary authorities, creating three tiers of government (one county tier, one region tier, one national tier)). I do not want an extra layer of pointless administration and bureaucracy any more than you do. I think 2 years is too frequent and would lead to voter apathy - that said, this is a gut feeling and I could be persuaded otherwise. That said, the election is always held on the May bank holiday, so it's not a work day which should help turn out. Finally, Assemblies are Devolved, not Federal - ultimately, they cannot resist national laws should the MHoC's desire be great enough. Is this enough to allay your worries?

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by TopHat)
Thank you. I've worked hard on this bill and I'd love to hear as much constructive criticism as possible - this would save the Union and give people greater control over their communities, so I'd love to see it pass.



They are the sizes they are so that the populations are comparable. "Southern England" would dominate the Union and you'd see the same London-centric politics you do now.



I will happily put in a TSR referendum, then.



The styles are as simple as I could make them, and I'm currently drafting a "How to Write a Bill" guide, so I don't think it should interfere. Additionally, I think this exemplifies why the GRA did work - I was not here for the last Act (which was a Federal Act, incidentally, so actually some strong differences). For me, this is an entirely new debate, and an important one for me. I am interested to hear everyone's responses. Being unable to discuss this would have reduced my enjoyment of the MHoC.

No from me based on both reasons, but primarily the first reason.

I can stick a TSR Devolution Referendum in if you want.



I was aware this could be a problem, which is why I added the clause;

"The Model House of Commons (Parliament) shall have authority for all matters intraregional".

This is a Bill of Devolution, not Federalism - we're absolutely not copying the US system here. Ultimately, the MHoC is still the ultimate arbiter. Given the NHS, as a National, rather than Regional, Health Service, would count as interregional, the MHoC still has authority where it wants. Does this satisfy that problem?



Do you remember how I said we had two major bills along the way? This is the first, and as it happens, the second is a vast and comprehensive reform of local government (the abolition district and county councils and the creation of unitary authorities, creating three tiers of government (one county tier, one region tier, one national tier)). I do not want an extra layer of pointless administration and bureaucracy any more than you do. I think 2 years is too frequent and would lead to voter apathy - that said, this is a gut feeling and I could be persuaded otherwise. That said, the election is always held on the May bank holiday, so it's not a work day which should help turn out. Finally, Assemblies are Devolved, not Federal - ultimately, they cannot resist national laws should the MHoC's desire be great enough. Is this enough to allay your worries?[/QUOTE]

perhaps only have London as a seperate assembly then? Looking at the numbers, I think i might change my mind and support this, although I'd still prefer less assemblys

[toronto353]

(Original post by TopHat)
I will happily put in a TSR referendum, then.

I don't think that you will get that this term. How are you going to run referendums for each assembly? It just won't work.

The styles are as simple as I could make them, and I'm currently drafting a "How to Write a Bill" guide, so I don't think it should interfere. Additionally, I think this exemplifies why the GRA did work - I was not here for the last Act (which was a Federal Act, incidentally, so actually some strong differences). For me, this is an entirely new debate, and an important one for me. I am interested to hear everyone's responses. Being unable to discuss this would have reduced my enjoyment of the MHoC.

It will make writing Bills more difficult because people have got to figure out the various issues about when things are agreed and by whom they are agreed. It makes things more difficult and of course, we can't guarantee that any assembly will agree to our legislation meaning that you're in a state of limbo, of a 'have they? haven't they?' problem because you can't guaranteed that they have been agreed and so who knows what has been passed and what hasn't? It doesn't work for our model.

Of course it shows why the GRA doesn't work - because the same old Bills have been submitted. Yes you may not have been around, but the GRA pushed old members out because they saw this coming. Those of us left are seeing the same old stuff and, though you may not like it, it's the long standing members of this House which are its lifeblood at the moment. Are you honestly saying that if you weren't able to debate this Bill because of the Federal Britain Act (I think it was), you'd be upset, well pardon me, but boo hoo. The GRA doesn't work for cases like this one.

[Morgsie]

Regional Assemblies was proposed 10 years ago IRL and failed