advantages and disadvantages of law making process

One major advantage of the legislative process (law made by Parliament) is that it is democratic as Members of Parliament [MPs] are elected by the public to sit in the House of Commons. At a general election the public are allowed to vote for the political party whose policies (as outlined in their manifesto) reflect their own views; this gives ordinary members of the public a chance to influence new laws that are passed. However, it is argued that the process is not entirely democratic as the public do not elect the House of Lords yet they can still debate, suggest amendments to, and vote on legislation. Therefore, unelected people are not accountable for the decisions they make, which could lead to poor quality law. Yet, the HoL does, however, contains many experts from the world of science, medicine, education, sport, business and law who can apply their expert knowledge to ensure that new laws are properly scrutinised and serve the best interests of the country e.g. Baroness Hale (former judge and President of the UKSC) now sits in the Lords after retiring from the UKSC. Furthermore, the House of Lords cannot ultimately block a bill.

Another advantage of the legislative process is that it takes a long time for a bill to become an Act, as it needs to pass through both 'Houses'. This is an advantage as it enables the bill to be effectively scrutinised and checked for errors by both the Houses. This detailed scrutiny also allows the bill to undergo thorough discussion by 650 elected MP's and over 800 Lords with expertise in science, business and culture; in comparison panels of only 5-7 Justices decide important cases in the UKSC. Together with the consultation that occurs prior to the introduction of a Bill, this means that proposed laws are subject to detailed scrutiny and mistakes are likely to be spotted. This should help to ensure that the legislation that is passed is fit for purpose and fair, upholding the rule of law. However, the lengthy process means that some bills run out of time and have to be reintroduced in the next Parliament, or not at all. In contrast, some bills are rushed through the process and are passed containing errors e.g. Dangerous Dogs Act 1991; this is often called 'panic legislation'.

A disadvantage of the legislative process is that the whip system can be seen as undemocratic. This is a disadvantage as MPs are forced to vote along 'party lines' rather than following the wishes and views of their constituents who voted for them. Party whips have also been accused of 'bully' tactics because they put too much pressure on MPs to vote with their party by recording and monitoring the way MPs vote during a 'division'. However, an advantage of the whip system is that it ensures that MP's do vote with their party. This is important as the public vote for an MP to represent them in Parliament and they choose them according to the party they support.

A disadvantage of the legislative process is that Private Members' Bills (PMB) are very difficult to get passed into law. This is a disadvantage because PMBs are an excellent way for members of the public and pressure groups like Greenpeace, to influence the law. Backbench MPs must not only get a place in the annual ballot for a PMB but also, they must get Government support in terms of both time in the House of Commons to debate the bill and MP's voting in favour of the bill, which is often very difficult. However, some important changes in the law have arisen through PMB's even if they were not formally backed by the government e.g. Abortion Act 1967, which shows that they can play an important role in law reform.