Law-Making Powers of Parliament - Essay Example

?Parliament’s Law-making Powers Introduction The laws of any country continue evolving to fit the requirement of the time and situation. Many basic laws are adopted by all countries such as the constitution and common-law systems. In the reform and enactment of new laws, various legislative bodies are in place to address such concerns. This is to address changes of requirements, adoption to needs, as well as respond to perceived flaws of existing laws by the public. Whilst specific bodies are concerned with the enactment of laws, however, does not mean for constituents or citizens to leave law makers by themselves. An active and vigilant constituency will ensure that a better-informed legislation will take place. It is therefore necessary for all concerned to be always in the lookout for opportunities, if not create ways to have their questions and issues be heard by their law makers. This paper will try to describe the law-making process of the United Kingdom in consideration of issues of policy and principle. Describe the current legislative system in the UK (i.e. how laws are made) and analyse, critically, if it is adequate in upholding the idea of democracy, discussing changes that you believe are needed The parliament is in-charge of debating and passing laws in the United Kingdom. There are several reasons why laws are enacted, or that new laws should be passed. Some of the most immediate reasons include the need to address emergency situations like threat on peace and security of the people, terrorism, pressure on the Government to update laws which are no longer applicable, re-interpret, clarify or re-apply “established principles of statute law” are only some of the general reasons (UK Parliament, 2011, P 2). The origins of changes in laws also vary. Professional groups, voluntary organisations as well as pressure groups usually discuss and consult one another prior to the proposal to enact or change a law. During this period, the proposals may seek comments from the public as they take shape and they are usually called Green Papers. Later on, the proposals are contained in government White Papers. However, there is “no requirement for White of Green Papers to be introduced before a Bill is introduced into Parliament,” (UK Parliament, 2011, P 3). The Draft Bill is published to seek consultation and pre-legislative examination or analysis prior to a formal introduction into the House of Commons or House of Lords. They are scrutinised in the stage known as pre-legislative scrutiny by departmental select committee in the Commons, joint committee of Lords or Members of the Commons. “This allows MPs and Members of the Lords to have early influence on the Bill,” (UK Parliament, 2011, P 4). The Bills may be applicable to the whole UK, to a select locality or group, or one or more constituent parts. There are also law-making powers within the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, and the Northern Ireland Assembly. It should also be noted that some laws are enacted in compliance with European Union legislation or international organisation mandates where the United Kingdom is a member-signatory (UK Parliament, 2011). Where there is conflict or disagreement between the Commons and the Lords, the Parliament Acts is used. The Parliament Act 1911 was enacted after dissatisfaction with the House of Lords veto power or power to stop legislation, with the exemption of extending the lifetime of a Parliament. It allows the Lords to delay a Bill for up to two years (UK Parliament, 2011). The Parliament Act 1949 further reduced the delay period to only one year. Money Bills that were designed to raise money as well as spend public money originates from the Commons and always granted Royal Assent within a month after the introduction to the House of Lords, with or without passing as the Lords were not allowed to amend Money bills (UK Parliament, 2011). Majority of Common Bills can be delayed by the Lords for up to a year but after that, the Commons reintroduce and pass them (UK Parliament, 2011). The Immigration Law Practitioners' Association (ILPA) suggested that there are several sources of law: Legislation, Policy, Common law and caselaw, European law, and international law. It suggested that the key opportunities to influencing or lobbying includes during the consultation process. A consultation document commences during public consultation and it will contain explanation to whom responses must be sent and at what period, pose the specific question that needs to be answered, and a response should be sensible and extensive. The Government also invites scrutiny on some draft legislation such as the Immigration and Citizenship Bill being examined by the Home Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights (ILPA, 2008). Ministerial Statements is where amendment of a bill being passed may be acted on as Government commitments. These are used by courts to interpret legislation (ILPA, 2008). Criticism on UK Laws Criticism on existing laws and policies always involve the public or some sectors which may perceive a threat or a need to address existing issues that threaten or disadvantaged them. One such law being criticised was the legal technicalities in the Scotland Act, which set up the Scottish Parliament. It has caused unnecessary legislative delay and put Scottish farmers at a disadvantage compared with England and Wales (Farmers Guardian, 2001). Previous criticism on British law had been directed towards its soft stance on reports about pay-offs undertaken by British companies in order to win lucrative contracts especially in emerging markets. Another UK law that has been considered an embarrassment to the global community is UK’s libel law. In a 2010, Simon Singh, a science writer, that questioned the evidence for medical claims by complainant British Chiropractic Association, and Peter Wilmshurst, a cardiologist who criticised an American company’s heart implant trial, were sued. Another Francisco Lacerda, professor of phonetics at Stockholm University, who in 2007, published an article entitled “Charlatanry in Forensic Speech Science” in the International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law was threatened with a costly defamation case by manufacturer Nemesysco. The article criticised the science behind analysis technologies claiming to identify stressed voices as indication of lying (Henderson, 2010). Several others such as criticism for cosmetic surgery and even the Guardian reporting on toxic waste company Trafigura (Hirsch, 2010) were all silenced using libel as a threat. Hirsch (2010) quoted Conservative MP David Davis who claimed that the ability of companies such as Rodial to use libel law against critics was a violation of ancient principles of English law (P 4). How the parliament would address the issue remained to be seen as even free speech did not lessen its chilling effect on the many advocates for the right of the public to know what is good and not good for them. Libel in the UK has been considered as costly and many cases mostly involved big publishers against defenseless individuals or small individuals against big companies. The law was seen as ineffectual due to its conflict with the freedom of speech aside from impinging on the right of the public to know about important matters that affect their lives. Lord McNally, the justice minister, emphasized that, “We need investigative journalism and scientific research to be able to flourish without the fear of unfounded, lengthy and costly defamation and libel cases being brought against them. We are committed to reforming the law on defamation and want to focus on ensuring that a right and a fair balance is struck between freedom of expression and the protection of reputation,” (as quoted by Sweney, 2010, P 4). “Libel tourism” has also been pointed out as a result of the UK defamation law lapses where foreign claimants bring their complaints to English courts with the high expectation of gaining advantage of UK libel law (Sweney, 2010). Former justice secretary, Jack Straw, announced a raft of proposals to overhaul existing law in 2010. It has also been suggested that the libel law itself was not the main problem but the access to justice that provides privilege for the rich to use the claim as a tactical weapon. It was also suggested that civil litigation funding be considered in the reform (Stanley, 2011). One law firm spokesperson commented, “I don't think it is too easy to bring a libel case, but it is inordinately expensive and that has serious consequences, both for individuals and smaller publishers. This bill alone won't cure the problem - it's the procedure, including the costs regime, that also needs to change,” (Stanley, 2011, P 11). The issue about accessibility of the law, libel or not, is therefore one of the challenges that the Parliament would need to consider in their future enactments and amendment procedures. Influencing Law-Making and Policy As mentioned earlier, the public may have a say on bills proposed on both House of Commons and House of Lords during the consultation process. Lobbyists may provide their questions and sides of the policy detailing their concerns. One such move has been undertaken by builders and designers as published in Building Design (Booth, 2003) to campaign for of Building Design's Flat VAT campaign. The campaign is looking into: how readers had been disadvantaged by tax absurdity; how much development would flat VAT encourage in an area; what inspired design ideas they have for dragging existing, derelict and redundant building stock into the 21st century (Booth, 2003, P 6).The campaign also hopes to seek a well-though regeneration of urban dwellings. Other ways applied in order for the public to hear their voices were use of media, advocate and lobby groups that prepare position papers in support of or in amendment to any proposed bills. The consultation process should also be taken advantage of to ensure that the needs and wants of the constituency are being considered in the legislation process. The disadvantages, however, maybe presented by hindrances and conflicts on concerned individuals, groups or sectors that may lack information, resources, as well as linkages to influence decision-making. Most of the time, the vigilance of the media and their support for advocates remain as the last resort for public representation when it comes to legislation, laws and policies. Addressing Criticisms and Lapses of Laws There are various reactions of the legislators on the criticism of current laws and their perceived applicability and practicality as well as lapses. Many organisations or groups are charged with informing the Parliament about these perceived problems with law through position papers submitted to the Parliament offices. Others are t thorough media coverage of controversial cases as well as publication of perceived flaws and problems. One of the least desirable reactions is the perceived lingering of proposed amendments for laws or bills which may take years prior to gaining substantial strength to be tackled in the Parliament. This is done by deliberate non-tackling of said issues in official sessions although commentaries of the members of the Parliament are voiced out through the media and to the public. These positions, however, do not constitute actual bill proposition, enactment, or changes for problematic laws but are simply token approaches to assure, if not mislead the public that the issue has been taken seriously by the said bodies. The UK government responded with the bribery issues by enacting the Bribery Act in 2010 which was seen as almost similar to United States standards in prosecuting suspected multinationals engaged in overseas graft (Peel, 2010). It was considered the “first big change to UK bribery regulation in more than 100 years,” (Peel, 2010, P 4). The act has been delayed for about seven years when it was first introduced. Britain has been criticised as hypocrite in its failure to bring bribery prosecution against UK corporations whilst it had been requiring other countries to tackle their corruption issues. Even the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development criticised the UK as risky for foreign companies for its lax in handling bribery charges. The Act has been further delayed for implementation by the ministry of justice (Peel, 2010). Under the Bribery Act, a company can be charged when it fails to prevent bribery involving a third party or associated persons aimed at obtaining or advantage in conducting business. Associated persons include employees or non-related persons who may be acting on the company’s consent. The act becomes the liability of the corporation and it will not matter whether the offence is committed outside the UK. Legal Week (2010) suggested that “Companies that have already adopted Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)-compliant policies need to be aware that the Bribery Act goes beyond the FCPA and will need to consider whether new compliance procedures will be necessary, particularly in relation to private sector bribery, corporate hospitality and facilitation payments,” (P 6). As with the libel law reform, it had been noted that there had been too much expectation. Draft for the bill had been seen to merely codify current case law. The key provisions, however, may be significant in consideration of the status quo: the introduction of a substantial harm test as pre-condition for libel claims, a single publication rule that will only cover first publication of a defamatory statement, abolishment of jury trials, and limitation of libel tourism to rare and highly controversial claims (Stanley, 2011). The aim of the bill was to balance freedom of expression with protecting reputation of constituents although the government acknowledged the inefficiency of the current law to provide enough freedom of expression on academic and scientific debates, works of investigative journalists, as well as non-governmental organisations (Sweney, 2010). Conclusion Throughout modern history, laws will be challenged as to their appropriateness, timeliness, and applicability to current issues and situations. Many will remain referable to case laws and existing common law provisions. The presence of the two houses of parliament provides a balance to address issues about existing and applicable laws as well as their applicability. The legislation of new or reform bills usually takes time and a lot of debate prior to its several readings before the House of Commons or the House of Lords. Advocate and lobby groups as well as the respective committees assigned on the matter are never wanting of data and information to support their sides and proposals. There is also sufficient time and opportunity for various public voices to be heard during the consultation process. Definitely, influence may be rubbed from one sector throughout the process as much as in the enactment of laws. There would be certain advantaged as well as disadvantaged sectors especially where lack of concern and information by the public becomes widespread. But this thing cannot be avoided as there are many ways that legislators can make laws appear to be for the good of the public even when it was only to benefit a contractor or two. In addition, as noted, many cases are costly to bring to court already providing a divide between those who can afford and those who cannot. It can be that laws and their enactment to abide by emerging demands and needs are not the bigger problems but the implementation as well as lopsided privilege it provides to constituents. This leads to another debate about the accessibility of justice and fair treatment from authorities, and not so much about the legislation process. Words: 2500 Reference: Booth, Robert. 2003. COMMENT: We plan to win, but we need your help. Building Design. July 4, 2003, p 8. CMP Information Ltd. Farmers Guardian. 2001. Act's 'flaw' angers SNFU. February 9. CMP Information Ltd. Immigration Law Practitioners' Association (ILPA). 2008. How laws are made in the UK and how to influence the law-making process. Accessed from http://www.ilpa.org.uk/infoservice/Papers%20and%20Notes/How%20laws%20are%20made%20in%20%20UK%20and%20how%20to%20influence%20the%20la1.pdf Henderson, Mark. 2010. Libel laws silenced me, says Francisco Lacerda, critic of lie detector system. The Sunday Times, March 11. Accessed from http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article7057745.ece Hirsch, Afua. 2010. Boob Job cream manufacturer 'using libel laws to silence critics'. Guardian, December 2. Accessed from http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/dec/02/boob-job-cream-libel-law Legal Week. 2010. Bribery Act 2010 paves the way for tougher action. June 10. Incisive Media Limited. Peel, Michael, 2010. UK responds to critics with law. Financial Times, September 14. Accessed April 2011 from http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/379b2916-bf6b-11df-965a-00144feab49a.html#axzz1KUifvmNj Stanley, Georgina. 2011. Libel reform - too timid, too dangerous, too bad. Legal Week, March 24. Incisive Media Limited. United Kingdom Parliament. 2011. Why are new laws needed? Accessed from http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/new-laws/ Read More