Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Chris Hall
Hi All,
I am wondering if anyone can tell me what the difference is between an Act and an Order. Mainly im wondering as to why the forthcoming Fire safety legislation is an Order instead of an Act? does this have any different legal statuts or anything?
thanks
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Cathy Ricketts
Orders are an easier method of updating Regulations - in order to update using an order the minister has to ensure that a three step process is completed - although the have to have parliamentary approval they dont have to go through the same reading stages as changes to Acts of Parliament. Acts are Primary legislation whereas Regulations are subordinate legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Cathy Ricketts
Sorry thats probably a bit confusing having posted and sat back and read it. Orders can be used to update primary legislation. They were brought in in 2001 to try and speed up the process of updating legislation without having to go through the full process
For more information check out
http://www.cabinetoffice..._reform/pdf/rrosbgrd.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Hall
thanks very much for your speedy response!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson
Dear Chris,
There is in effect no difference between an act, regulation or order once made as all have equal weight in law. The differences between them are in the procedure by which they are made; Acts are primary legislation made by parliament; whilst regulations and orders are secondary legislation made by ministers, which have to through set procedures to come into force as law.
Regards Adrian Watson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Perhaps the succinct answer is that an Order is enacted as a Statutory Instrument to amend Primary Legislation. Thus the provisions of the Act become those of the Order when made.
We have to separate these from Orders In Council which cannot be used to amend primary legislation. Although they can be used to sidestep a decision of the courts on occasions cf Tierra del Fuego debacle commenced by the government of Harold Wilson and supported by Order in Council by the present government when the courts ruled in favour of the displaced residents.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.