The phrase ‘enshrined in law’ has met its perfect subject: sewage.

27 October 2021

At last the phrase ‘enshrined in law’ has met its perfect subject.

Sewage.

*

This blog has previously averred that ‘enshrined in law’ is one of the most dishonest phrases in the political lexicon.

https://twitter.com/law_and_policy/status/1453040659846336512

This is usually for one of two main reasons.

First: a commitment ‘enshrined in law’ is often accompanied by various get-outs, or is in broad terms – so it has no real legal effect.

For example, the supposed spending commitment on international aid.

Or second: the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy means that anything done by a statute can easily be undone by a statute.

This is because placing something on a statutory basis does not give it some super-duper magically entrenched power.

For example, the successive Brexit dates that were ‘enshrined in law’ before being postponed.

In the constitution of the United Kingdom it is impossible for any provision to be ‘enshrined in law’ in any meaningful way.

It will always be one political move away from circumvention or frustration, or a simple parliamentary move away from amendment or repeal.

The phrase ‘enshrined in law’ is therefore used by political and media fools, or by political and media knaves taking you to be a fool.

*

And so yesterday this dreadful phrase found its natural policy home.

The government’s apparent u-turn (or u-bend, in the circumstances) over sewage.

Last night the government published this statement:

“The Government has today (26 October) announced that the Environment Bill will be further strengthened with an amendment that will see a duty enshrined in law to ensure water companies secure a progressive reduction in the adverse impacts of discharges from storm overflows.”

This statement is political sleight-of-hand (and in a normal world would not be on an official government website in this form, but – hey – those days have gone).

For instance, the term ‘further strengthened’ is in tension with the government’s own backbenchers voting against the house of lords amendment on this very point.

What has happened, of course, is that there has been a political storm overflow, drenching those nod-along government supporters who voted down the amendment with the raw product of popular dissatisfaction.

And so the government has had to reverse its position, while getting publicly funded officials to misdirect the public about it being a ‘further strengthening’.

But.

If you look carefully at the statement you will notice something that is not there.

There is no text of an amendment.

And this, no doubt, is because the there is no text of the amendment, for the amendment does not yet exist.

So we have the spectacle of the government asserting that there will be a ‘further strengthening’ of a bill without saying how this will be done.

Just words, and air.

And it is this vapour is what will be ‘enshrined in law’.

Misdirection upon misdirection: government by panicky press release.

*

Whenever the phrase ‘enshrined in law’ is used then there is foolishness and/or knavery afoot.

Either the person saying this does not understand the law or that person is wanting to mislead you about the law.

And, in either case, something is being done that has not been properly thought-through.

The phrase has always come with a smell.

And we now know what that smell is of.

Sewage.

******

This blog needs your help to continue – each free-to-read post takes time and opportunity cost.

This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.

If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – for the you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

*****

You can also have each post sent by email by filling in the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

******

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.

Comments will not be published if irksome.

8 thoughts on “The phrase ‘enshrined in law’ has met its perfect subject: sewage.”

  1. Also, Parliament is only sovereign until such time as it is no longer sovereign.

    For example, compare UK sovereignty over Dublin in the year 1912 versus the lack of UK sovereignty over Dublin in the year 1922.

    Or perhaps UK sovereignty over Edinburgh in the year 2022 versus UK sovereignty over Edinburgh in the year 2032.

  2. In a world where government statements are commonly false, and policy announcements made mainly for their effect in the media are rapidly discarded without embarrassment, “enshrined in law” perhaps has the meaning “has effect until Parliament makes a modicum of effort to negate it”. So yes it is enshrined, but the shrine is made of twigs not marble.

  3. “strengthened” – great. But what about enforcement?

    The Environment Agency does not enforce the existing law, which permits spills of untreated or partially treated sewage in specific and limited circumstances. Many water companies break the law on this frequently, almost as a matter of routine, with little to no come-back. The Briefing Room on BBC Radio 4 covered this in some detail several weeks ago: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00108jb

  4. ‘Progressive reduction’ also leaves lots of room for manoeuvre, if not chicanery. Is it to be reduced to zero, and if so over what period? Or will reducing it by an infinitesimal amount suffice? And as has already been noted, what sanctions, if any, will ensue if they fail to do it? The only worthwhile objective would be to eliminate dumping sewage altogether, and as soon as possible.

  5. I am sure the lack of an amendment text is another sign that this Government on real enthusiasms are ambiguity and avoiding responsibility. Their only objective is emotional manipulation to retain power. Problem-solving does not come into it.

  6. Ancient Rome apparently had a shrine to Venus Cloacina, the cleansing goddess who presided over the Cloaca Maxima, which discharged raw sewage into the Tiber. Maybe Johnson the classicist has something similar in mind (“I see the Tiber foaming with much sewage”). It was probably a sophisticated disposal system for its time, but 21st century Britain could surely do better than this, even without EU regulatory oversight.

  7. Many years ago I recall a cynical old sage giving me his rather profound opinion of politicians:

    “Politicians are like toilets – vacant – engaged or full of ****!

    Not necessarily fair David, but very apt in the context of your article.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.