|
Government departments and
agencies |
Government departments and
agencies propose law reform, which is
their departmental responsibility.
For example, the Home Office has
responsibility for criminal law
reform and the criminal justice system. It proposes laws and issue
circulars (directives to police, courts etc.) in respect of the
police.
The Office of Fair Trading
proposes and enforces laws on consumer issues.
The following is just a sample
of government departments:
Home Office.
Department of Health.
Department for Education and
Skills.
Equal Opportunities Commission.
Health and Safety Executive.
Office of Fair Trading.
Environment Agency.
Department for Environment Food and
Rural Affairs
Following public complaints about timeshare selling the Office of Fair
Trading investigated and reported. What followed was the
Timeshare Act 1992 now gives a consumer a right to cancel within 14
days, if a timeshare agreement is made with a business. |
|
The
Ministry of Justice
(formerly the Lord Chancellor's Department) |
The Ministry of
Justice (MoJ) has existed since 2007, its main role the efficient administration
of justice.
The MoJ oversees
the
programme of government civil legislation and answers to Parliament for
the work of the Law Commission.
The MoJ roles
include responsibility for:
courts,
prisons,
probation and
constitutional affairs
(including the judges)
|
|
‘Think-tanks’ |
Think-tanks are
small groups that concentrate on issues and advise governments,
either on a national level or global.
They are normally not
government
departments but independent. It is their independence that makes
them highly influential.
The Guardian has published a
comprehensive report on most of the major Think-tanks,
here
Centre-right of
politics: -
The Centre for Policy Studies, the
Institute of
Economic Affairs
and
Demos.
Centre of
politics: -
The Social Market Foundation
and
The Institute for Fiscal Studies.
Centre-left: -
The Institute for Public Policy
Research
and the
Fabian Society. |
|
The Offences Against the
Person Bill - an example of law reform in practice |
|
Offences Against the Person
Act 1861 |
The
Offences Against the Person
Act 1861 was a consolidating act and relied on
even older legislation and court decisions. The Act is full of
antiquated language and confusion. |
|
Draft Bill |
The Law Commission produced a
draft bill based on a report in 1993 (Draft Criminal Law Bill).
Legislating the Criminal Code: Offences against the Person and General
Principles (Report)
[1993] EWLC 218
(01 January 1993) |
|
Examples of the proposed
changes: |
|
Grievous
Bodily Harm (GBH)
|
Becomes ‘Serious Injury’. |
|
Malicious and Wounding |
The words are avoided
altogether. |
|
The existing
section 18 (GBH with intent)
|
Becomes ‘Intentionally Causing
Serious Injury’. (Clause 1) and carries life imprisonment. |
|
The existing section 20 (GBH
and wounding) |
Becomes ‘Recklessly Causing
Serious Injury’. (Clause 2) and carries 7 years imprisonment. |
|
The existing section 47 (ABH,
actual bodily harm) |
Becomes ‘Intentionally or
recklessly causing injury’. (Clause 3) and carries 5 years imprisonment. |
|
Assault |
Means assault and battery
(Clause 4), this clarifies the current common law confusion. |
|
Final Draft Bill |
The Home Office produced a consultation
document in 1998. Nothing happened and it is expected that the new Bill
will be modelled on the 1993 Law Commission Report. |
|
Influences within Parliament |
|
Successful Private members'
bills |
|
|
Unsuccessful Private
members' bills |
|
Laurie Pavitt MP |
Secured a place in the private
members' ballot in 1981 proposed an unsuccessful Tobacco Advertising Bill
1981.
|
|
John Corrie MP |
Unsuccessful Abortion
(Amendment) Bill 1979 based on proposals from the
Society for the Protection of the Unborn
Child (SPUC). |
|
Private member's bills on hunting |
There have been many Private
Member's Bills covering hunting, these maintained the momentum for change
which eventually occurred:
-
1949 two private members bills
failed.
-
1991 Wild Mammals (Protection)
Bill introduced by Kevin McNamara MP; fell at second reading
-
1994 Wild Mammals (Protection)
Bill introduced by John McFall MP; defeated in the Lords.
-
1998
Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill; introduced by Michael Foster MP
failed due to lack of Parliamentary time
-
1999
Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill; introduced by Ken Livingstone
was talked out.
A private member's bills
introduced in the Scottish Parliament, Mike Watson's bill led to the
banning of hunting in Scotland in 2002.
|
|
Other influences |
|
Parliamentary Advisers |
Some groups offer financial or
other support to MPs, by appointing them as "Parliamentary advisers" to
represent that the groups' interests in Parliament. |
|
Parliamentary committees |
Numerous committees investigate
various aspects of law reform from time to time. Some of these
committees are more powerful than others. |
|
Select
Committee of the House of Lords
|
In July 1988 it recommended
that the sentence for murder be changed from a fixed sentence of life
imprisonment to a maximum of life imprisonment. This change did not
take place, twenty years on the matter is still be considered. |
|
House of Commons Home
Affairs Committee |
Recommended in December 1995
that the mandatory life sentence should stay.
In 2007 a further consultation on murder was announced. |
|
The Committee on Standards in Public Life
|
|
The Committee on Standards in
Public Life |
The Committee on Standards in Public Life has been constituted as a
standing body with its members appointed for up to three years. It is a
very powerful body and members of Parliament try and avoid falling foul of
it.
It is responsible for initiating Codes of Conduct for MPs, Government
Ministers, and all holders of other public office, including local
authorities.
Lord Nolan became the Committee’s first Chairman, on 10 November 1997.
The Ninth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life published in
April 2003, defined the Boundaries within the Executive: Ministers,
Special Advisers and the permanent Civil Service. |
|
The Parliamentary
Commissioner for Standards |
The Office of the
Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards was set up by the House of
Commons in 1995 as a result of recommendations made by the
Committee on Standards in
Public Life.
The Commissioner
is appointed by the House of Commons for a period of three years.
The Commissioners'
responsibilities include:
|
|
A Minister of Justice |
The Haldane Committee in 1918 suggested that there should be a
Minister of Justice in charge of the legal system.
The Haldane
Report acknowledged that the drawing of clearly lines around a
department’s activities was in practice an impossible task such was the
need for ‘co-operation between Departments in dealing with business of
common interest’ (Haldane 1918: 16).
The Report proposed ten main divisions one of which would be Justice.
In May 2007, the Ministry of
Justice combined the Lord Chancellor's Department and some Home Office
functions
|
|
[H.Woolf ‘Judicial
Review - the tensions between the executive and the judiciary’ (1998)
114 LQR 579]
|
Before the
Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the Lord Chancellor occupied
a seat in the cabinet, the House of Lords and the Judiciary, which flew
in the face of the separation of powers.
Lord Woolf
defended the position of the Lord Chancellor being part of each of the
three organs of the states;
"As a member of the Cabinet, he (the Lord
Chancellor) can act as an advocate on behalf of the courts and the
justice system. He can explain to his colleagues in the Cabinet the
proper significance of a decision which they regard as being distasteful
in consequence of an application for judicial review. He can, as a
member of the Government, ensure that the courts are properly resourced.
On the other hand, on behalf of the Government, he can explain to the
judiciary the realities of the political situation and the constraints
on the resources which they must inevitably accept.
As long as the Lord Chancellor is punctilious in keeping his separate
roles distinct, the separation of powers is not undermined and the
justice system benefits immeasurably. The justice system is better
served by having the head of the judiciary at the centre of Government
than it would be by having its interests represented by a Minister of
Justice who would lack these other roles."
|
