Pointless laws
Sir: The leading article ‘Wrong problem, wrong law’ (19 October) makes cogent points about the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, in particular pointing out that it would probably not have made any difference had it been in force at the time of the Manchester Arena bombing, and that if passed it will impose disproportionate and often unmanageable burdens on venues such as churches and village halls. There is, in truth, a wider point here: most legislation is either counterproductive, useless or both. All legislation has five aspects:
(1) A real purpose. This may be to achieve the ostensible purpose of the legislation, but is often really to make it look as if the government is ‘doing something’.
(2) An ostensible purpose. Every Act has an ostensible purpose e.g. to reduce violent crime by restricting weapons.
(3) Measures: for instance criminalising sale of long sharp knives with pictures on the blade, in the Offensive Weapons Act 1988 (Amendment) Order 2016. Measures are quite often ill-framed and ineffective.
(4) Intended effects: e.g. putting young gang members off carrying knives through making them less aesthetically appealing. These are often not achieved, either because the legislation is ill-framed, or because it was never likely to be effective.
(5) Unintended consequences. These are practically inevitable, but while some can be predicted, many will be entirely unpredicted and uncosted.
Some legislation works very well, typically that which is proposed by formal law reform bodies and drafted by lawyers. I have no simple answer to offer for dealing with the tidal wave of pointless and counterproductive legislation generated under governments of all colours, but we might consider whether MPs have too much time.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in