>> Why the civil service was unable to draft something
>> suitable and enforceable I do not know, but that’s where we are.
>>
Depends what remit they got from Government. The use, and conflation of "rules" and "guidelines" doesn't make for the easiest of drafting, if that was what was requested.
Personally, I'd rather see more rules than guidelines, and I'm not convinced that it would be impossible to implement much more of the two in a legal framework.
With a Government pushing for more draconian action in the lockdown (whether or not it is actually fully covered in law, rather than guidelines) and Police Forces trying to serve communities with polarised views on the same, I have some sympathy with the position certain plod "on the ground" find themselves in.
The legislation should be tighter, clearer and then enforced (in the first instance with a light touch until the rules get embedded, and then with rigour).
As far as Civil Service drafting is concerned, I wouldn't be surprised to find the text has only briefly, if at all, passed their scrutiny before landing on the ministerial desk. Given the long-term running down of the Service, and the practice (particularly of, but not restricted to, this Government) throwing work at outside bodies, I suspect this may have been contracted out to some major law practice at QC and above rates, and dashed off by, at best, a junior paralegal (and at worst, the tea-lady*).
The result shows all the effects of a lack of basic understanding, and certainly a lack of continuity and learning between this and previous versions.
(*used only as a figure of speech; tea ladies are the salt of the earth (and the source of all gossip!))
|
