Regular readers will know that I am sceptical of the ability of the two Houses of Parliament to deal effectively with legislation. However, exceptions prove the rule. Last Thursday, as part of the prorogation process, a Private Member’s Bill I have been piloting through the House of Lords received its Royal Assent. And I think it was a model of its kind.
To be honest, it wasn’t really my Bill. All the hard work was done in the Commons by my colleague and friend Willie Rennie MP. Having been outraged by a case in his constituency, when there seemed to be no way in which a driving instructor could be suspended whilst serious allegations were being investigated and brought to court, he negotiated with the Department for Transport to see what could be done to fill this legal loophole. The Commons scrutiny was thorough, with support from all sides of the House, and by the time it reached me in the Lords, it was really a done deal.
We were on tenterhooks on Friday 10th July this year to know whether we would even reach the Bill, since there were three others before us in the queue. Each had a loyal following and had emotive potential so there was no guarantee that my Bill would be reached. Fortunately, all concerned were anxious that the business should be completed in good time and in good order, the new Minister was gracious and helpful, and the second reading was achieved without mishap. Since there had been so much careful preparation and examination, I was able to report to the House on 29th October that there had been no amendments tabled, no Committee Stage was necessary, and therefore we didn’t even have to have a Report Stage. That whole episode lasted less than a minute. Similarly, the third reading was achieved without any further obstacles, again in a matter of seconds.
All in all, this was not rushed, there was no dangerously casual knee-jerk reaction to a problem, but the process ran smoothly and to good effect.
One after thought. I wonder if this had been brought forward as a Government Bill whether there would have been a bit of oppositionitis, and it might all have been more troublesome. Private Member’s Bills have their value.
I’ve a problem with this. Look at the costings for this. You and parliament have spent a lot of money on the basis of one event.
Since you haven’t said anything about the allegations, if they have been proved since, or they were false, we can’t tell if it’s a case of a new law, when existing laws can deal with the problem. The MP has nothing on their website.
Why should it be a specific problem for driving instructors? What about other occupations?
So no costs. No justification that can be checked. No information about why existing laws aren’t sufficient. Nothing about any more general issues.
So without that it comes across as a make work project. Something to keep a couple of people who are underemployed busy
Obviously this Bill was good, in that a person in a responsible position SHOULD be suspended if allegations are made against them. However what does that say about the Houses of Parliament who in public eyes seem to think they are a seperate case and exempt from such rulings. Law should apply equally across the board, the public in general were appalled that no legal action has been taken over the expenses scandal. The belief being that each one of us believes if we had committed the same we would very quickly find ourselves in Court.
People in high positions should be aware of their responsibilities and act accordingly as the 9 Lords who contribute to this blog do. I appreciate that they are prepared to openly debate issues knowing they are in a more vunerable position than those who do not contribute. This shows that they are open to criticism, open in general and accept their responsibilities seriously.
It still concerns me somewhat that both houses have not taken onboard modern communications and are still very much doing business as they were 400 years ago. I very much favour compulsory voting, not only for both house but for the public too.
If it is so quick, why is there such a delay for bills about corruption and the Lords?
If you are correct, you could have introduced a private member’s bill that made it illegal to offer, accept, or give the appearance of accepting money to change legistlation, and it would have been passed in a minute.
It could also have been made retrospective like other laws. For example, the law on expenses passed using one of the enabling act type powers to deal with a certain Lord’s expenses claims and make them legal retrospectively.
I can guarantee, Lord Tyler, that if it were to have been a Home Office Bill, it would have taken months, and whatever the amendments, would have left the situation worse than if Marsham Street had never bothered.
I wonder if you’d mind taking over the place? It’s about time someone did.
You mean a minister running the Home office rather than the other way around. It’s an interesting idea but the precedent isn’t good.
Lord Tyler,
Have you seen the film Happy Go Lucky about a slightly dippy young lady learning to drive after her bike is stolen ??
May not be your cup of tea [It is a Mike Leigh film, but cheerier than his normal fare] but it might raise a laugh after piloting this important bill onto the Statute Books.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1045670/
This Act amends the Road Traffic Act by adding a new section to the part dealing with the regulation of driving instructors. Whilst the earlier provisions allowed for a driving instructor’s licence to be withheld if a person were not of ‘good character’ – there was no provision to allow for the suspension of an instructor suspected of serious misconduct where such a charge had not yet been proven. The purpose of the amendment made by this Act is to plug this hole, and the new section thoughtfully allows for the compensation of an instructor who is subject to suspension under it, and who is later reinstated.
If this Act, or the need for it, highlights anything it is that regulation by legislation is clumsy. The law is necessarily a blunt instrument, and this is more so where it is strictly construed, as a provision such as this it must be.
I agree that some amendment was necessary. However, I wonder if it might not have been just as effective to devolve the power to the regulatory body overseeing driving instructors to make such further provisions concerning the meaning of ‘good character’, and how to deal with oddball cases like this one and sundry others that might turn up (e.g. by statutory instrument).
It is nice to know that small, non-contentious Bills can be thoughtfully put together like this one seems to have been (to my quick reading of it anyway), and passed without squabbling. Sadly, Lord Tyler does probably have a point about oppositionitis had this been a government bill.
Any piece of legislation that helps to make the roads safer is to be welcomed.