My colleague Lord Hylton received an interesting answer to a written question last week. I have delayed blogging about it because I thought he might be doing so … but here goes.
The question concerns how many sections and/or schedules to Acts of Parliament since 1997 have not commenced and the staggering answer is about 150.
There is probably much margin to be given to those laws enacted in recent months such as the Parliamentary Standards Act of 2009 or the Bribery Act which was passed only at the very end of the last Parliament before the election.
However there is far less excuse for those laws passed in 1997 and 1998! These would include National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997; Social Security Administration (Fraud)Act 1997 and Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Act 1998. Admittedly some of the as yet unimplemented sections and schedules may concern very insignificant OR controversial aspects of laws . By far the largest number of outstanding legislative clauses arise from the Criminal Justice Act of 2003 ( something like 39 Sections and perhaps double the number of Schedules).
What does this suggest? That an avalanche of legislation is too much of a burden for Government to implement fully and that Parliament would be a more efficient place with less legislation.
I had exactly the same thought, and was waiting to see if Lord Hylton reproduced the answer!
The answer in full can be found at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/100614w0003.htm#1006144000778
Wasn’t/isn’t there an entire Act, signed into law by the Queen Herself, which cannot take effect due to the supremacy of European Law?
I find that deeply disturbing.
It was the Merchant Shipping Act of 1988 for those who are interested.
Thank you.
Curiously, I had recently noted an Act that had only been partially implemented and waanted to know what ‘not in force’ meant.
Would this be sufficient for a statutory defence if charged?
Once an Act has been passed when would I know whether bits of it were not in force?
I was also puzzled by the large number of schedules and sections in Health Acts not implemented. Some were minor and clearly still being negotiated (with dentists for example about their contract), another was a failure to reach agreement with Scotland about border patients and others had ben superseded by more legislation. It raises once more the good sense of having a programme of post-legislative scrutiny perhaps 3-5 yrs after an act has passed to see what needs revising.
Well just tell the departments that they jolly well can’t have another bill until they’ve implemented the last one!
Perhaps they should have “use by” dates?
All that time spent debating laws only to have them lie on the shelf…
Guided by your comments it seems that post-legislative scrutiny, sell-by-dates and a move towards less legislation altogether would make a big difference
What about a bit of democracy?
Why not give the electorate the final say?
Lord Blagger
(“) Giving the final say to the Electorate(“) would not work;
simply because the only immediate-to-longterm practical-effect The People have on ‘their’ Parliaments, Legislation, and Constitution, is via deaf-&-dumb pencilled marks on a little Ballot Paper once every five years.
We still need your other recommendation, Lord Blagger, of a much wider and more two-way accessible pre-legislature, pre-decision-making, Peoples’ cooperative-discussion channel/network. (jsdm 2348Th2406).
simply because the only immediate-to-longterm practical-effect The People have on ‘their’ Parliaments, Legislation, and Constitution, is via deaf-&-dumb pencilled marks on a little Ballot Paper once every five years.
=================
With a referenda by proxy set up, they have a regular say on what gets implemented, not every five years.
‘Regular say’ meaning … ?
Please clearly define each word. Why ?
‘Say,’ for instance, in terms of democratic- egality, is practically impossible:
60 million citizens, each needing all the others to hear their needs; this calculates out to 2 (two)seconds once every five years !
So much for the British Democratic Government tenet “We’re listening to you. Have your say !”
“Can I go to/ ‘TIME’S UP YOU’VE HAD YOUR SAY’/ [bed now ?)”.
No matter how vital just one complete spoken-sentence might have been, that answer my friend is blowing in the wind.
(jsdm0027St2606)
“move towards less legislation”
There would surely be less legislation if there were less legislators to do it!
Very nearly a mathematical proof… but not quite!
Never mind unconsummated acts and annulments!
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/hoflbpreform.pdf
What about unrequited love?
“how many sections and/or schedules to Acts of Parliament since 1997 have not commenced”
The word “commenced seemed like a weak on in B DeSouza’s pen and yet there it is on the HoL paper put forward by Lord Norton.
Have I been deceived all this time in to thinking that an Act is not an Act at all, an d that it may never “start” or “commence” due
to circumstances beyond our control, like the local cinema when the film reel pops its clogs?
Is an Act merely a Hippie “Happening” in the Palace of Westminster? Off to Glastonbury!
Gareth Howell, I had the same sense of puzzlement when I first came into the Lords. But it makes some sense that many changes require preparation by central and local government departments and also by the people directly affected by them. So quite often Acts have a commencement date up to 2-3 years ahead, or more often a few sections of an Act will be delayed. And then we all forget whether they’ve happened or not.
Baroness D’Souza, please:
My comment to “Wot! no legislation” at 1116W230610, ends with a request which pehaps should be shared with other appropriate blogs ?
“My Lords JSDM has a relevant real-life current instance of failing but unspotted legislation and budgeting (not of the British Isles), short enough for one submission; but too long to add here; so he begs special leave to submit that evidence separately, touching Legislation, Budgeting, and Healthy Citizenship; and in that would remain cogent and appreciative.”