My committee, Merits of Statutory Instruments, is suffering from overload. In January we scrutinised more than 100 new pieces of delegated legislation and in February/March we have had another 200 to look at. The reason for the increase may be a last-minute attempt to get them through before the announcement of the general election, or it may be that there is simply more delegated legislation because it is implementing more new primary legislation. The instruments we have looked at range from major new initiatives concerning legal aid, paternity leave and freezing terrorists’ assets, to students’ fees, fish labelling and one instrument that was primarily directed at changing the use of the word “chairman” to “chair” in order to be gender neutral. The whole spectrum of government initiatives is spread before us, with scarcely time to do it justice, although the incredible detailed work of the Committee’s staff ensures that anything of particular interest or sensitivity is thoroughly examined and annotated for us.
I cannot help wondering whether all this legislation is necessary. The Merits Committee is insisting that there be monitoring of these new laws once they have been in force for a while, to check if they have really made a difference; and we have tried to streamline and reduce the burden of them on schools in particular. There is hardly time to absorb one new set of rules before another comes along. I believe that government would be improved if we could all have a respite from new laws and statutory instruments for a while, until such time as we have fully implemented what is already on the statute book and monitored the effect they are having, if any. Not every problem has to be met with a new law; and not every European Directive has to be brought into force in every detail and sometimes going beyond what is required – this practice is called “gold plating”. Peers have no vote in the general election but you readers might ask yourselves whether the party that promises less legislation is the one that most deserves your vote.
During these assessments do you refer to the public submissions made in consultations?
Yes we certainly do. For example, see this account of the evidence we looked at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldmerit/70/7002.htm
“I believe that government would be improved if we could all have a respite from new laws and statutory instruments for a while, until such time as we have fully implemented what is already on the statute book and monitored the effect they are having, if any.”
The noble Baroness post makes me laugh at serious matters. They do say that the virtue of Sir John Major’s govt was that the sheer incompetence of it, reaching way down in to the bureaucracy had preciselt thenegative effect sought above. On that basis we should be seeking an incompetent govt!
” Not every problem has to be met with a new law; and not every European Directive has to be brought into force in every detail and sometimes going beyond what is required – this practice is called “gold plating” ”
I am interested in the powers to vary ED (European directive) and the regulation allowing HGV vehicles on minor B roads in rural Britain is one. Could that have been varied at the time, and can county councils vary it for their own satisfaction now? If Peers may gold plate may county gold plate as well?!
Where is the practise of “gold plating” to be seen written down as regulation of regulations, so that I can identify what the exact powers are?
Complements to Merits Committee.
It would be helpful if a new government actually set out to repeal much of the legislation on the statute book.
Especially the obsolete legislation, quoted as a Defence by MP’s alleged to have committed offences on expenses.
It is time for a reality check! All of this legislation costs money. Repealing it en-bloc, with one act of Parliament would probably save billions.
Future legislation from the Bible Perhaps the 10 Commandments might be sufficient.
You said:
“Future legislation from the Bible Perhaps the 10 Commandments might be sufficient.”
‘Thou shalt not kill.’ Great. But on the subject of reality checks, further legislation would be required in order to set a penalty.
“It would be helpful if a new government actually set out to repeal much of the legislation on the statute book.”
Ernests’s recipe for anarchy!!
“a reality check!”
I wonder whether there has ever been a government which has abolished Law!!!
It’s a marvellous sunny morning and Ernest has helped to make it for me!
“Future legislation from the Bible Perhaps the 10 Commandments might be sufficient.”
Which ten? There are three revisions in the old testament … and I’m not particularly fond of following an archaic mythological tradition, namely “sabbath”; nor am I inclined to avoid YHWH’s name; nor am I particularly persuaded by arguments against thoughtcrime–covet my wife if you wish.
Perhaps George Carlin’s “revised list of two commandments” would be more apt.
No matter which party forms the Government come next election there will be drastic cuts in public services. At present levels we have nightclub bouncers issuing fixed penalties, ill trained PCSO`s patrolling our streets inplace of proper police and private security firms on the increase.
No matter what sphere any increase in legislation will be foolhardy. Continued increases in legislation whilst continued cuts in policing are ongoing is just stupidity.
Spending the next two years looking at Parliament and the system however maybe worthwhile.
“ill trained PCSO`s patrolling our streets inplace of proper police and private security firms on the increase.”
Of course private enterprise surely permits other people to be corrupt as well as the police!
My own experience of a neighborhood watch in a local town is that they (attempt to) abduct at their leisure, and describe it as a Citizen’s arrest!
I would draw your attention to that most commented bit of legislation before the House, Schedule 1 of the CSF Bill. Look at how much of that is merely an enabling framework for secondary legislation. Almost nothing is defined as primary legislation, it is all left to the department to come up with later instead of doing their job properly and spending the time to think it through first. It is not the only such Bill put through by this government, merely the one with which I am most familiar.
I would draw attention to the Great Repeal Bill project, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Great_Repeal_Bill where people can suggest things that should be removed or done over in a better fashion.
I’ve suggested elsewhere that all legislation should have sunset clauses so that limited Parliamentary time causes there to be a maximum amount of legislation in existence simply because that’s all there’s time for to debate renewing – to let something else in, something has to be dropped to make time.
There are victims too. The Commons had to issue ‘Clarification of the Act of Settlement 1701’ when Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked questions in the house.
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-05357.pdf
There were unintended conflicts between the ‘Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill 2009-10’ and the ‘Electoral Administration Act 2006’. As a peer she was fortunate that somebody listened but what of those victims whose voice could not be heard.
What I find really scary is the pace at which the Commons wants to effect constitutional change. These should take between 15-20 years to come to statute but they are happening far too quickly. Less haste more speed seems to come to mind.
The government needs to learn make the press coverage from one initiative/bill last longer rather than announcing so many of them. Currently, they seem to announce an initiative a day. You wonder why seeing as, with regard to the election, both parties seem to believe that only when the media is getting bored of an idea has the general public begun to notice it.
The only answer I can think of is that it’s not public perception of a specific bill/initiative itself that matters to a government but the general perception that “we are doing something”.
http://www.governing-principles.com
Senex
“pace at which the Commons wants to effect constitutional change”
All these constitutional changes and more were mooted between 1995-97 by the campaigning Labour party; 15 years not enough for you?
GP
“not public perception of a specific bill/initiative itself that matters to a government but the general perception that “we are doing something”
Isn’t that frequently so, the most obvious example being law and order.
“In January we scrutinised more than 100 new pieces of delegated legislation and in February/March we have had another 200 to look at.”
And people wonder why some of this stuff gets through badly made – sounds like you need more resources.
“I cannot help wondering whether all this legislation is necessary.”
I cannot help fervently believing that it is not.
One major problem is that everytime a ‘problem’ in the functioning of existing law is identified, expecially if it is juicy and media-worthy, a hue and cry goes up to change the law. Following which, our leaders, fearful of their chances in the next electoral free-for-all, are falling over themselves to be seen as the ones ‘doing something about it’, that is introducing the next Snake Oil Bill.
“And people wonder why some of this stuff gets through badly made – sounds like you need more resources.”
It’s called govt bureaucracy.
“I cannot help fervently believing that it is not.”
It is.
We spend as long on the papers as is required, partly because most of the reading is done at home at the weekend, and partly because the Lords committee staff work even harder.
BD: Recently the Commons were debating the ‘Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill’ and what document exemptions from FOI should apply to the Monarchy when Dr. Tony Wright (Cannock Chase) (Lab) asked Mr Straw a question:
“In the unlikely event that we had a monarch who was seeking to subvert the constitution, would it not be in the public interest for us to know about that?”
Mr Straw replied: “…it would be perfectly possible for this House to bring in all sorts of emergency legislation, including an Act of Attainder…”
What Dr. Tony Wright could not ask because it was out of context was, “what would happen if the Monarch was associated with a misdemeanour?” No doubt Mr Straw using the same logic would have suggested that a ‘Bill of Pains and Penalties’ could be used.
What!? Invoke a kangaroo court to dispense justice. For Christ’s sake! If we take the US Constitution as a benchmark both these instruments are outlawed under Article 1, Section 9. In 1820 Parliament at the behest of George IV passed a ‘Bill of Pains and Penalties’ so that the King could divorce his wife.
Recorded in Hansard and following on from Lord John Russell who opposed the bill, Mr Lockhart argued that the bill contravened Magna Carta by quoting: “Nemo capiatur aut imprisonetur, aut aliquo modo destruatur; nisi per legale judicium parium suorum, vel per legem terræ.” There was a huge public outcry and the bill was withdrawn. The Queen regarded it as a personal victory and quite rightly so.
Can you imagine this today, I can’t. The Monarchy, Parliament and the Law Lords need to get their heads together. I simply cannot believe this is the way it is. It’s absolutely disgraceful.
Ref: HoC Hansard Debates for 02 Mar 2010 (pt 0009) Col 835
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100302/debtext/100302-0009.htm
George IV vs. Caroline of Brunswick
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pains_and_Penalties_Bill_1820
Hansard: The Queen – Bill of Pains and Penalties
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1820/oct/17/the-queen-bill-of-pains-and-penalties
What does Baroness Deech think of the Labour government proposal to disband the Lord of Lords and institute a Senate in its place?
What do turkeys think of Christmas? Of course I am opposed; an elected House would be a mirror of the party composition in the Commons and would not serve as a check and balance to the elective dictatorship. Nor would there be as many women and minority members in an elected House as the Lords has at present, in all probability. I am doubtful whether draft legislation would get the same lengthy and expert scrutiny as it does at the moment from Peers with appropriate experience. We (that is the Crossbenchers) are currently free to vote as our conscience dictates, and that is a precious freedom that should not be lost. Perhaps I will stand for election if the worst comes to the worst . . .
“What do turkeys think of Christmas?”
Must sound a bit like PMQT in the other place?
The key time in US politics is when the senate is of DIFFERENT complexion to congress, and starts to chuck out its bills for the pleasure of doing so. The electorate seems to have become more savvy recently, but in US you may belong to as many political parties as you wish, and campaign for as many as you wish which may make for greater possibilities now in getting the congress you want at the same time as the Senate you want!
The recent presidential election was won by states like KY running a campaign “Democrats for a Republican president”.
If you can work that out, you will know why Brak Obama had such a fine victory!
No! An entirely elected HofL is, Noble Lady, in my own humble opinion, an entirely laudable cause, a democratic, labour and socialist view, which should be given more thought!
I think an elected Lords would have be done in a different manner to the Commons – fixed terms, only a proportion up for election each year, so the composition of the House would change slowly. If it was elected, I would expect it to be allowed to junk legislation as it would have an equal mandate with the Commons in the eyes of the people. Perhaps that might stop the other place from taking that final step.
I do much prefer the idea of a chamber that is not under party pressure that is able to consider legislation properly, but there is the age-old problem of who gets the job. Labour has flooded the house with its appointees, which at some point negates the purpose of the second chamber and it turns into an expensive rubber stamp. I have no objection to the hereditary peers, I believe that records show that at the time of Blair’s reform, the hardest-working peers were the hereditaries (although no doubt that record can be interpreted many ways), although I believe Labours objection to them is most likely because very few of them were Labour supporters, missing the point of what they were actually doing.
So, any Lords reform is going to have to look closely at how it selects its members and the long-term implications of that.
“Perhaps I will stand for election if the worst comes to the worst . . .”
Get`s my vote my Lady.
While I think of it, what’s wrong with the term ‘chairman’? Changing it to a piece of furniture is an absurd piece of political correctness.
The correct form of address was always “Mister Chairman” or “Madam Chairman”, directed to the person occupying the position, whereas under the new scheme I assume we’ll have an armchair and an office chair, or possibly a wooden one and a padded one.
Dave you forgot the most important ” the electric”.
😉
What is wrong with chairwoman?
You mean, apart from “everything?” We’ve had a perfectly good word for many years, why change it? I consider the office of ‘chairman’ is gender-neutral, it can then be modified with ‘Mister’ or ‘Madam’ as in my earlier comment.
I also saw an example of ‘ombudsperson’ in the wild yesterday. Ugh.
(In feminine voice)
One of legs broke.
Sorry Ladytizzy 😉
In my experience we tend to just use “Chair”.
I have some sympathy with the more excruciating examples of bastardisation in the name of PCness, but Chair is not one of them. It is gender neutral, Chairman is not.
You sound like my dad.
While PC name changes can often be rather ridiculous, I’m fine with “Chair” as the default. However, I never can really understand why “Chairman” and “Chairwoman” can’t be left as options for the Chair to choose. After all, it is they who are being addressed.
Also, surely people can be sensible enough to make these changes themselves? It feels a bit petty for the House of Lords to have to deal with. Maybe 10-20 years ago legislation would have been needed to force something like this… but now?
http://www.governing-principles.com
Ladytizzy,
I actually agree but my face can only be slapped so many times by those of a PC view.
How to act/speak is becoming increasingly difficult, as a young eastend greengrocer I remember clearly having my face slapped in the 80`s for asking “Yes darling ?”
Then there are the times you hold a door open for someone in a wheelchair or like only to be told very rudely ” I can do it myself !”
I can`t win I`m afraid.
So forgive me if I act a bit gingerely around people I don`t know.
Regards sounding like your Dad it`s pos…..
😉
So sorry, Carl, I should have clearly prefaced my last post with @Dave H. Damn this ‘Reply’ system…
Holding doors open and the like has more to do with good manners – please don’t stop just because of somebody else’s ignorance.
@governing principals: if only common sense could be sold in a bottle we could do away with most laws (returning to the original post).
I’m with Baroness Murphy on the completely forseeable problems created by the recent employment laws that now afflict women. How was giving the right to take 39 weeks maternity leave (compared with two weeks paternity leave) ever going to do anything other than make employers think at least twice before taking on a female worker?
Incidentally, google “maternity pay” and the first hit is for direct.gov.uk/dadsatwork. Brilliant.