Artikel 11: Kulturforandring i regeljunglen 2 - Solnedgangsklausuler

For english see below

Covid-19 pandemien førte til en langt højere anvendelse af hastelovgivning, hvor høringsprocesser mv. blev sat ud af kraft. Og meget tyder på, at tilbøjeligheden med at dække lovgivning ind under kriser hænger ved; at man ikke er kommet tilbage til tiden før pandemien, hvor det hørte til den absolutte undtagelse. Det kan være nødvendigt med hastighed, men det indebærer også en reel risiko for lovsjusk og tab af retssikkerhed – men det er der heldigvis også greb til at håndtere.

Metoden hedder solnedgangsklausuler – altså bestemmelser der stipulerer, at loven ophører med at eksistere efter fx 5 år, og at regeringen skal fremsætte loven på ny, hvis den fortsat skal være gældende. For hastelovgivning bør solnedgangsklausulen være på seks måneder. Det giver på den ene side mulighed for at få den vedtaget i første omgang; på den anden side mulighed for at debattere dens implikationer, lade sig inspirere af eksperter og høringssvar og sikre en ordentlig politisk diskussion, før loven – måske – endeligt vedtages igen for en længere periode. Samtidig indskrænker det de ofte drakoniske beføjelser, som hastelove tillægger myndighederne, til en relativt kort periode.

Nudge-elementet i solnedgangsklausuler er, at der er stor forskel på aktivt at skulle ophæve en gældende lov, der i princippet løber uendeligt, og så at sætte en fast udløbsdato og derved sikre, at man skal gøre noget aktivt for at få loven til at løbe videre. Derfor synes vi hos Bridge Consulting, at man bør overveje hyppigere brug af solnedgangsklausuler.

(Justitsministeriet er imod, bl.a. fordi det – som de skriver – ” forudsætter…, at fagministeriet har fuldt overblik over, hvilken lovgivning der i givet fald udløber hvornår, så der om nødvendigt kan tages nye initiativer inden gyldighedsperiodens udløb”. Er det for meget at forlange?)

Samtidig hænger solnedgangsklausuler rigtig godt sammen med ex post evalueringer af et givet stykke regulering. Ideelt set skal man indskrive et krav om en ex post evaluering i loven sammen med solnedgangsklausulen, så man kan stå på skuldrene af en grundig ex post evaluering, når man på et tidspunkt skal træffe nogle informerede politiske beslutninger om, hvorvidt en lov skal genfremsættes, og hvilke justeringer den så bør komme igennem. Og det giver selvfølgelig mere mening med en evaluering, hvis man har en forudgående konsekvensvurdering at holde evalueringen op imod. Ellers er det jo svært at vide, om reglerne performede, som man forventede, ikke?

Hos Bridge Consulting går vi ind for informerede beslutninger funderet på solide data. Derfor er vi tilhængere af konsekvensvurderinger, som du kan læse mere om i Artikel #4: ”Systematiske konsekvensvurderinger af al lovgivning tager tempoet ud af processen og øger kvaliteten”.

Article 11: Cultural change in the "rule swamp" 2 - Sunset clauses

The COVID-19 pandemic led to much greater use of emergency legislation, with consultation processes etc. being suspended. And there are many indications that the tendency to use emergency legislation during crises is here to stay; that we have not returned to the pre-pandemic era, when this was the absolute exception. Speed may be necessary, but it also entails a real risk of legislative sloppiness and loss of legal certainty — fortunately, however, there are measures in place to deal with this.

The method is called sunset clauses – provisions stipulating that the law will cease to exist after, for example, five years, and that the government must reintroduce the law if it is to remain in force. For emergency legislation, the sunset clause should be for six months. On the one hand, this makes it possible to get it passed in the first place; on the other hand, it allows for debate on its implications, input from experts and consultation responses, and ensures a proper political discussion before the law is – perhaps – finally passed again for a longer period. At the same time, it limits the often draconian powers that emergency legislation confers on the authorities to a relatively short period.

The nudge element in sunset clauses is that there is a big difference between actively repealing a law that in principle runs indefinitely and setting a fixed expiry date, thereby ensuring that something must be done actively to keep the law in force. Therefore, at Bridge Consulting, we believe that more frequent use of sunset clauses should be considered.

(The Ministry of Justice is opposed to this, partly because, as they write, "it presupposes that the relevant ministry has a complete overview of which legislation expires when, so that new initiatives can be taken before the expiry date if necessary." Is this too much to ask?)

At the same time, sunset clauses go hand in hand with ex post evaluations of a given piece of regulation. Ideally, a requirement for an ex-post evaluation should be included in the law together with the sunset clause, so that one can build on a thorough ex-post evaluation when the time comes to make informed political decisions about whether a law should be reintroduced and what adjustments it should undergo. And, of course, an evaluation makes more sense if you have a prior impact assessment to compare it with. Otherwise, it is difficult to know whether the rules performed as expected, isn't it?

At Bridge Consulting, we advocate informed decisions based on solid data. That is why we are supporters of impact assessments, which you can read more about in Article #4: "Systematic impact assessments of all legislation slow down the process and improve quality" .