Parliamentary Law Making Disadvantages Model Answer

• The Parliamentary Law Making system whereby the House of Commons, House of Lords and Monarch work together to develop new Legislation, is an established system which has been in effect for a number of centuries, holding many strengths. However, with this comes many limitations
• Rushed Through or Run Out of Time

  This can lead to laws passed containing errors e.g. Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. The new law was rushed through but led to serious problems as it didn't define a dangerous dog by breed but by type (which is much broader). This led to high profile cases of dogs being put down. There were numerous changes made to the Law after this and it still hasn't properly been fixed. Also Parliament does not always have time to introduce new laws.

  In 1993, The Law Commission proposed changes to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The Government produced a draft bill in 1998 but it still has not been put before Parliament. This is despite the fact that the Act is outdated as many of the concepts in society have changed since 1861. This is clearly disadvantageous as it can result in the laws of the country being unfit for purposed and in some cases, wholly unfair on the population.
• Whip System

  Whereby the whip forces an MP to vote along with their party's wishes, this is seen as undemocratic and the whips have been accused of 'bully' tactics. The Public Bill Committee will always have a majority of Government's MP's sitting on it so they may control what changes are suggested. This is real debate. The House of Lords is unelected and therefore, undemocratic. They can suggest changes to a bill but cannot be voted it of power. Acts of Parliaments often leave the detail of the law to others to make under Delegated Legislation. These other bodies (e.g Local Transport Providers - MerseyTravel) are not elected. Each of these above issues highlight the un-democratic nature of Parliament and how, even though the public vote for Parliament to create Laws, there are many other factors in play which may mean the Laws the public want are not achieved.
• Length and Takes A Lot of Time

  For example, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 took 14 months to reach Royal Assent. In some situation, the Law which the Government are trying to create can be one of Public interest and importance, which has a lot of support. However, by the time the Law Making Process has progressed, the public may have lost interest in an issue and there is no further momentum behind the development of the law. With an elected Government, the will of the Public is important in keeping them in power, therefore this long process could result in their power being taken away as the Public lose faith.
• Government Controls Debates in Parliament

  The timetable for holding debates, they do not always fairly apportion the time for holding debates, especially over Private Members' Bills. Even when an MP proposes a Bill, the Government can vote it out as they have a majority, very few Private Member's Bills become Law, especially if the sitting Government do not agree with the proposal. Even if the Bill is presented, if the Government do not agree, they can vote it down with their majority seating in Parliament. Further, if the law which has been created includes errors, this can result in a difficult process to get the Law amended due to Parliamentary Sovereignty, for example, in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
• As such, it can be seen that the role of Parliament in the Law making process is wholly disadvantageous. The law making process is slow and takes too long, with numerous people and steps involved in the process. Further, the undemocratic nature of the system does not allow for the will of the people to be shown via the Laws created, instead, giving power to unelected persons to create new legislation