B1520 – Foreign Funding Restrictions Bill 2019. (Third Reading) Watch

This discussion is closed.
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#1
B1520 – Foreign Funding Restrictions Bill (Third Reading), TSR Conservative and Unionist Party





A

B I L L

TO


prevent Her Majesty's government from bribing foreign dictators and funding corrupt regimes.


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 labels "full democracy", "flawed democracy", "hybrid regime", and "authoritarian regime" is based on the Democracy Index issued by the Economist Intelligence Unit.
b. The classification of a jurisdiction with the label "perceived as less corrupt" and "perceived as more corrupt" is based on the Corruption Perceptions Index issued by Transparency International, with the former group being juridictions with 50 points or more, and the latter 49 or fewer.
c. "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 based on the level of democracy
a. Under no circumstances may the government transfer funds to a government or a governmental body in a foreign jurisdiction, except to acquire goods or services.
b. Under no circumstances may 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 or an authoritarian regime, except to acquire goods or services.

3 Restrictions on government funding for foreign bodies based on the perceived level of corruption
a. Under no circumstances may the government transfer funds to a government or a governmental body in a jurisdiction perceived as less corrupt, except to acquire goods or services.
b. Under no circumstances may the government transfer funds to a government or a governmental body in a jurisdiction perceived as more corrupt, except to acquire goods or services.

4 Penalties for breaching this act
a. Any government official found in breach of this act shall be subject to removal of office.
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 title, commencement, 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.
c. This Act comes into force upon royal assent.

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.


This is a link to download the latest Democracy Index report: https://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index

This is an article about foreign aid (from the US) and how proper monitoring could be a solution: https://www.cgdev.org/blog/how-much-...ost-corruption

The latest corruption perception index can be found here: https://www.transparency.org/cpi2018

Changes from first reading:
1. The "must"s and "should"s have been changed.
2. Full and flawed democracies are now subject to the same restriction.
3. Hybrid and authoritarian regimes are now subject to the same restriction.
4. The purchase of goods and services is now explicitly allowed.
5. The clause to remove someone from office has been simplified.
6. Wording was changed to make it clear that it refers to any 10 years.
7. Notes added a link to the latest report.
8. Notes added a link about foreign aid and possible monitoring of it.
9. Criteria on the perception of corruption is added.
10. A typo was fixed - "label" to "labels".


Changes from second reading:
1. 2(a) and (b) have been merged.

2. The requirement for independent commissions has been removed.
Last edited by Andrew97; 4 months ago
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 months ago
#2
Mr Speaker, from the definitions used in this bill, should the Economist Intelligence Unit cease to exist at any point in the future, this bill would be rendered completely null and void.

As I suggested in the first reading, and seems to have been ignored, I strongly recommend that the author includes actual definitions in the section entitled "Definitions" rather than cite a third party within the legislation itself. Without this change there frankly isn't a point in sending it to division at all.
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 months ago
#3
It's amazing it has taken until the 3rd reading to get:

" The "must"s and "should"s have been changed."
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 months ago
#4
(Original post by SoggyCabbages)
It's amazing it has taken until the 3rd reading to get:

" The "must"s and "should"s have been changed."
Oh were they not the changes for the Second Reading?
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 months ago
#5
Refer to previous comments (or at least the ones still applicable)
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 months ago
#6
(Original post by SoggyCabbages)
It's amazing it has taken until the 3rd reading to get:

" The "must"s and "should"s have been changed."
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
Oh were they not the changes for the Second Reading?
They were, but perhaps someone didn't see "Changes from first reading".
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 months ago
#7
Three a and b should still be merged. They say the same thing for all countries so why on Earth are they two clauses?
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 months ago
#8
Would a better way be to require a vote in Parliament each year for funding to overseas governments with certain information to be presented? Some countries would be exempt.
1
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 months ago
#9
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
They were, but perhaps someone didn't see "Changes from first reading".
Glad I'm not going mad!
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#10
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
Glad I'm not going mad!
You can’t go mad when you’ve already reached madness.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 months ago
#11
Mr Speaker, this bill has my full support.
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 months ago
#12
(Original post by Aph)
Three a and b should still be merged. They say the same thing for all countries so why on Earth are they two clauses?
I can confirm that it's a mistake.
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 months ago
#13
(Original post by barnetlad)
Would a better way be to require a vote in Parliament each year for funding to overseas governments with certain information to be presented? Some countries would be exempt.
Not unless you can convince us that there's a reason for us to literally gift free money to another government directly.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 months ago
#14
(Original post by barnetlad)
Would a better way be to require a vote in Parliament each year for funding to overseas governments with certain information to be presented? Some countries would be exempt.
You miss the point of the bill, clearly. It exists solely to de facto abolish foreign aid with the Tories not having the balls to just straight up make it all illegal
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 months ago
#15
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
You miss the point of the bill, clearly. It exists solely to de facto abolish foreign aid until such a time when the third party mentioned in section 1 changes name/disintegrates, whereby there are suddenly no definitions to follow; with the Tories not having the balls to just straight up make it all illegal
Fixed that for you.
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 months ago
#16
Leaning towards Aye but please address the issue of what happens IF the EIU goes *poof*.
1
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#17
This item has entered cessation.
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#18
Division, clear the Lobby.
0
X
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

Do you get study leave?

Yes- I like it (499)
59.76%
Yes- I don't like it (43)
5.15%
No- I want it (237)
28.38%
No- I don't want it (56)
6.71%

Watched Threads

View All