[Ed Hammond]

Primary legislation always prevails, but authorities still have the freedom to decide how and when scrutiny will exercise its powers - particularly as the primary legislation is so general. So it's perfectly legal to have something in the constitution that limits scrutiny activity, and prescribes it as having to occur in a certain way.

Of course, you don't *have* to do that just because it's in the model constitution. If that makes sense.

[gareth davies]

Ehammond Wrote:Primary legislation always prevails, but authorities still have the freedom to decide how and when scrutiny will exercise its powers - particularly as the primary legislation is so general. So it's perfectly legal to have something in the constitution that limits scrutiny activity, and prescribes it as having to occur in a certain way.

Of course, you don't *have* to do that just because it's in the model constitution. If that makes sense.

It sort of makes sense, but only in a very limited, you can do what you like so long as you don't breach the spirit of the legislation kind of way.

It probably takes us back to debates about badly drafted legislation and the over reliance of modern governments on secondary legislation and guidance rather than primary legislation.

[Ed Hammond]

Well, sort of - the problem lies in the model constitution really, which is wilfully obtuse in parts and which most authorities simply copied wholesale, rather than thinking intelligently about their governance arrangements. But that's a whole different debate!