Simon Bradshaw (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
major_clanger) wrote2009-09-09 09:43 am
major_clanger) wrote2009-09-09 09:43 am
Entry tags:
HMG in Badly Drafted Legislation Shock
Via the BBC:
"A married Canadian woman is due to fly out of Heathrow later under imminent threat of deportation from the UK. Rochelle Wallis is one of the first people to fall foul of the unintended consequences of rules brought in last year to stop forced marriages."
This is yet another example of this Government's prediction for trying to legislate away problems without carrying out a proper analysis of the wider consequences of new laws. It seems that even the Home Secretary is implicitly admitting that this case is far from the circumstances that the law was meant to apply to, but that it would be too embarrassing and awkward to start making exceptions.
I am tempted to volunteer my services to HMG to read draft legislation and suggest "what if X happened?" I assume such a position is vacant, because there seems little sign of this being actually done these days.
(Here, for instance, there is a blanket minimum age of 21, raised recently from 18. It seems - I can't find the enabling legislation anywhere, and it may just have been a policy change - that there's no appeal or exceptions process. Frankly, if this wasn't a legislative change it ought to be subject to judicial review, and if it was then I'm not sure it's HRA 1998 compliant. Of course, HMG would probably assert that since by definition the people affected aren't UK or EU citizens yet, the Human Rights Act doesn't apply to them. Bah.)
"A married Canadian woman is due to fly out of Heathrow later under imminent threat of deportation from the UK. Rochelle Wallis is one of the first people to fall foul of the unintended consequences of rules brought in last year to stop forced marriages."
This is yet another example of this Government's prediction for trying to legislate away problems without carrying out a proper analysis of the wider consequences of new laws. It seems that even the Home Secretary is implicitly admitting that this case is far from the circumstances that the law was meant to apply to, but that it would be too embarrassing and awkward to start making exceptions.
I am tempted to volunteer my services to HMG to read draft legislation and suggest "what if X happened?" I assume such a position is vacant, because there seems little sign of this being actually done these days.
(Here, for instance, there is a blanket minimum age of 21, raised recently from 18. It seems - I can't find the enabling legislation anywhere, and it may just have been a policy change - that there's no appeal or exceptions process. Frankly, if this wasn't a legislative change it ought to be subject to judicial review, and if it was then I'm not sure it's HRA 1998 compliant. Of course, HMG would probably assert that since by definition the people affected aren't UK or EU citizens yet, the Human Rights Act doesn't apply to them. Bah.)
no subject
"5. European Convention on Human Rights
5.1 As the instrument is subject to negative resolution procedure and does not amend primary
legislation, no statement is required."
The relevant bit of the explanatory memo is paras 6.31ff on page 53.
I have a funny feeling that the changes to visas for "entertainers" contained in the same document have already caused problems.
no subject
This is a piece of standard boilerplate for any SI which amends another SI. It's supposed to indicate that the changes are largely technical, even though in case they clearly were not.