B1520 – Foreign Funding Restrictions Bill Watch

Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#1
B1520 – Foreign Funding Restrictions Bill, TSR Conservative and Unionist Party




A

B I L L

TO


prevent Her Majesty's government from bribing foreign dictators.


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:—

1 Definitions
a. The classification of a jurisdiction with the label "full democracy", "flawed democracy", "hybrid regime", and "authoritarian regime" is based on the Democracy Index issued by the Economist Intelligence Unit.
b. "Government funding" refers to any money in any currency that comes from a budget of the government.

2 Restrictions on government funding for foreign bodies.
a. Under no circumstances, should the government transfer funds to a government in a foreign jurisdiction directly.
b. Under no circumstances, should the government transfer funds to a government or a governmental body in a jurisdiction deemed to be a flawed democracy.
c. Under no circumstances, must the government transfer funds to a government or a governmental body in a jurisdiction deemed to be a hybrid or an authoritarian regime.
d. Under no circumstances, must the government transfer funds to a foreign organization that is not registered, or has an affiliated body registered, in the United Kingdom as a charity, a not-for-profit organization, or a non-governmental organization in a jurisdiction deemed to be a hybrid regime.
e. Under no circumstances, must the government transfer funds to a foreign-based organization that is not registered in the United Kingdom as a charity, a not-for-profit organization, or a non-governmental organization in a jurisdiction deemed to be an authoritarian regime.

3 Independent commissions to review the use of funding for foreign bodies.
a. An independent commission should be set up by the government for funding in each foreign jurisdiction that received more than £10,000,000 in the course of, or is expected to receive in the course of, 10 years.
b. The independent commission shall monitor the use of all funds, judging on whether they were or are used in a cost-effective and efficient manner, and whether they were or are used in a way that they were or are meant to be used.
c. Furthermore, the independent commission looks into the possibility of government officials, both within and without the United Kingdom, benefiting financially from the funding.
d. The independent commission is obliged to submit quarterly reports to relevant oversight committee in the House of Commons.

4 Penalties for breaching this act.
a. Should any government official is found intentionally breaching this act, or ignores the negative findings of an independent commission, s/he shall be removed from office by either the Monarch on the advice of her ministers, or by a court.
b. The government official who is removed from office shall be liable to a fine of up to the amount misused in the funding granted, and/or up to 2 years in imprisonment.

5 Short titles and extent.
a. This act may be cited as the Foreign Funding Restrictions Act.
b. This Act extends to the whole of the United Kingdom.

Notes:
Foreign aid might seem morally a necessity for developed countries to help developing countries in a time of need, but in practice, it has often been misused both by government officials in the developed countries and in the developing countries.

In many cases, foreign aid is used as de facto bribery of foreign dictators, with very little money going towards the common people who require the financial assistance.

In others, the aid becomes a burden of the government, a loan they cannot repay.

[/field]
1
reply
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 weeks ago
#2
'Under no circumstances, must'
Must should be may here. This is saying the government cannot be compelled to do it but can still do it.

'An independent commission should'
This 'should' should be must XD. Law must be written in the imperative.


"Should any government official is found intentionally breaching this act, or ignores the negative findings of an independent commission, s/he shall be removed from office by either the Monarch on the advice of her ministers, or by a court."

This should be:
"Any government official found in breach of this act shall be subject to removal of office"

Make a separate clause about ignoring the commission's advice
Last edited by Aph; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 weeks ago
#3
Also, 3a, is this 10 consecutive years, any 10 random years, 10 consecutive years 55 years ago? I assume this doesn't account for inflation?
0
reply
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 weeks ago
#4
Nay.

Reasonable that in general (unless a very good reason) we should not be giving aid money to non-elected governments, but this Bill goes too far.

There has been disaster relief assisted by charities that are partners with UK based aid organisations, who may not strictly be deemed to be affiliated. There may be disaster relief assisted by governments of neighbouring countries, which would be prohibited under this Bill.
0
reply
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 weeks ago
#5
What's with the commas after 'under no circumstances'? Also, "Should any government official is" should be "Should any government official be', but I agree with Aph's correction on this point.

As for substance, I don't see if the problem this is trying to fix is actually a real problem at all.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by Aph)
'Under no circumstances, must'
Must should be may here. This is saying the government cannot be compelled to do it but can still do it.

'An independent commission should'
This 'should' should be must XD. Law must be written in the imperative.


"Should any government official is found intentionally breaching this act, or ignores the negative findings of an independent commission, s/he shall be removed from office by either the Monarch on the advice of her ministers, or by a court."

This should be:
"Any government official found in breach of this act shall be subject to removal of office"

Make a separate clause about ignoring the commission's advice
bit of a meme when you use "articles" in bills
1
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 weeks ago
#7
Mr Speaker, this bill has my full support.
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 weeks ago
#8
What is it with this party and an inability to provide links?!?!?!!
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 weeks ago
#9
Hope this helps for MPs who aren't aware of the definitions outlined in section 1...
0
reply
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by 04MR17)
Hope this helps for MPs who aren't aware of the definitions outlined in section 1...
So this bill stops us from buying American military hardware and French electricity to name a few things?
0
reply
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
bit of a meme when you use "articles" in bills
Thank you for your, as always, invaluable contribution.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by 04MR17)
Hope this helps for MPs who aren't aware of the definitions outlined in section 1...
Why are the US and France deemed flawed?
(Original post by Aph)
So this bill stops us from buying American military hardware and French electricity to name a few things?
The bill only applies to foreign aid as per the notes, it will be amended accordingly.
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by Rakas21)
Why are the US and France deemed flawed?
Better question: why are you questioning it given you fully support this bill which uses the same measures that you're now questioning?
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 weeks ago
#14
Mr Speaker, the notes do nothing to elaborate on the definitions outlined in section 1a, and as far as I am able to see, the definitions used are not publically accessible at all. Since the Conservative party has chosen not to simply copy and paste them and instead refer us all to a resource that not all of us have access to, I would encourage them to either guide members to somewhere they can access the resource or provide the absent definitions.

Without this information it becomes extremely difficult to examine this bill as it stands, and given the absence of any detail in notes it seems to me that this was a waste of a submission.

Furthermore, organisation is misspelt in section 2.d and e.
Section 4a contains grammatical errors, section 3 reads more like a motion; and the bill is missing a commencement clause which renders it unconstitutional - the second time your party has done this in the space of a week.

Frankly, I'm wondering if there even was an internal reading of this item.
Last edited by 04MR17; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by Aph)
Also, 3a, is this 10 consecutive years, any 10 random years, 10 consecutive years 55 years ago? I assume this doesn't account for inflation?
I expect the 10 years are perhaps in the medium of dog years given that this bill will never commence according to section 5...
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by 04MR17)
Better question: why are you questioning it given you fully support this bill which uses the same measures that you're now questioning?
The Economist is not the only source but at any rate, these things can be defined.
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by Rakas21)
The Economist is not the only source but at any rate, these things can be defined.
I can't see any other sources listed in your bill :confused: unless I've missed something here. If these things can be defined I'd suggest your party does that on the first attempt next time...
0
reply
Baron of Sealand
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by barnetlad)
Nay.

Reasonable that in general (unless a very good reason) we should not be giving aid money to non-elected governments, but this Bill goes too far.

There has been disaster relief assisted by charities that are partners with UK based aid organisations, who may not strictly be deemed to be affiliated. There may be disaster relief assisted by governments of neighbouring countries, which would be prohibited under this Bill.
They can choose organizations that do have a branch registered in the UK, such as the Red Cross, or the MSF.
0
reply
Baron of Sealand
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by Aph)
So this bill stops us from buying American military hardware and French electricity to name a few things?
Purchasing something is not the same as gifting funds...But if you do believe the wordings are problematic, I'm open to suggestions. I use the word "funds" instead of "aid" so the government cannot just give away money under a different name.
0
reply
Baron of Sealand
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by Aph)
Also, 3a, is this 10 consecutive years, any 10 random years, 10 consecutive years 55 years ago? I assume this doesn't account for inflation?
10 consecutive years, doesn't account for inflation.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How has the start of this academic year been for you?

Loving it - gonna be a great year (129)
18.12%
It's just nice to be back! (194)
27.25%
Not great so far... (255)
35.81%
I want to drop out! (134)
18.82%

Watched Threads

View All