Thursday, October 31, 2013

Advantages of the use of delegated legislation


The advantages of using delegated legislation are as follows:

• Timesaving
Delegated legislation can be introduced quickly where necessary in particular cases and permits rules to be changed in response to emergencies or unforeseen problems.  The use of delegated legislation, however, also saves parliamentary time generally. Given the pressure on debating time in Parliament and the highly detailed nature of typical delegated legislation, not to mention its sheer volume, Parliament would not have time to consider each individual piece of law that is enacted in the form of delegated legislation.

• Access to particular expertise
Related to the first advantage is the fact that the majority of Members of Parliament simply do not have sufficient expertise to consider such provisions effectively. Given the highly specialised and extremely technical nature of many of the regulations that are introduced through delegated legislation, it is necessary that those who are authorised to introduce the legislation should have access to the external expertise required to formulate such regulations. With regard to bylaws, it practically goes without saying that local and specialist knowledge should give rise to more appropriate rules than reliance on the general enactments of Parliament.

• Flexibility
The use of delegated legislation permits ministers to respond on an ad hoc basis to particular problems as and when they arise, and provides greater flexibility in the regulation of activity which is subject to the ministers’ overview.

CASE LAW
The foregoing has highlighted the increased importance of legislation in today’s society but, even allowing for this and the fact that case law can be overturned by legislation, the UK is still a common law system, and the importance and effectiveness of judicial creativity and common law principles and practices cannot be discounted. ‘Case law’ is the name given to the creation and refinement of law in the course of judicial decisions

Evaluation
The foregoing has set out the doctrine of binding precedent as it operates, in theory, to control the ambit of judicial discretion. It has to be recognised, however, that the doctrine does not operate as stringently as it appears to at first sight, and there are particular shortcomings in the system that must be addressed in weighing up the undoubted advantages with the equally undoubted disadvantages.

Disadvantages of case law

It should be noted that the advantage of flexibility at least potentially contradicts the alternative advantage of certainty, but there are other disadvantages in the doctrine which have to be considered. Amongst these are the following:

• Uncertainty
This refers to the fact that the degree of certainty provided by the doctrine of stare decisisis undermined by the absolute number of cases that have been reported and can be cited as authorities. This uncertainty is compounded by the ability of the judiciary to select which authority to follow, through use of the mechanism of distinguishing cases on their facts.

• Fixity
This refers to the possibility that the law, in relation to any particular area, may become ossified on the basis of an unjust precedent, with the consequence that previous injustices are perpetuated. An example of this was the long delay in the recognition of the possibility of rape within marriage, which was only recognised a decade ago

• Unconstitutionality

This is a fundamental question that refers to the fact that the judiciary are in fact overstepping their theoretical constitutional role by actually making law, rather than restricting themselves to the role of simply applying it. It is now probably a commonplace of legal theory that judges do make law. Due to their position in the constitution, however, judges have to be circumspect in the way in which, and the extent to which, they use their powers to create law and impose values. To overtly assert or exercise the power would be to challenge the power of the legislature. For an unelected body to challenge a politically supreme Parliament would be unwise, to say the least

0 comments:

Post a Comment