Our Lifting the Lid series aims to open up the delegated legislation process and reveal the stories behind recently published Statutory Instruments. This week: The European Union Referendum (Date of Referendum Etc.) Regulations 2016.
Joel Blackwell
Senior Researcher, Hansard Society
Joel conducts the Society’s continued research into the legislative process, the effectiveness of Parliament in scrutinising and holding the executive to account and the public’s engagement with politics.
He is co-author of 'The Devil is in the Detail: Parliament and Delegated Legislation'. Prior to joining the Hansard Society in 2014, Joel was a Political Consultant for Dods Parliamentary Communications and has also worked at the Electoral Commission. He graduated from Bristol University in 2005 with a degree in Politics and Social Policy.
Get our latest research, insights and events delivered to your inbox
We will never share your data with any third-parties.
Share this and support our work
On Monday 22nd February the government formally laid before Parliament the delegated legislation required to start the official campaign period before the EU referendum.
The European Union Referendum (Date of Referendum etc.) Regulations 2016 formally set the date of the referendum, which will be held on Thursday 23 June, and confirms that the referendum period, in which all campaigners will be subject to spending limits, will begin on Friday 15 April.
The Instrument also prescribes the period for which one campaign organisation can be designated as lead campaigner for each outcome in the referendum by the Electoral Commission. Campaigns can apply to become lead campaigner from Friday 4 March and the Electoral Commission must make its decision by Thursday 14 April, the day before the referendum period begins.
These Regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure which means that both Houses of Parliament must actively approve them before the provisions can come into effect.
Just over 20% of Statutory Instruments laid before Parliament each session are subject to the affirmative procedure, which is usually assigned to more substantial and important pieces of delegated legislation. The vast majority of Statutory Instruments subject to parliamentary scrutiny are subject to the negative procedure, a less stringent form of parliamentary control than the affirmative procedure. Flow charts outlining the process for these two procedures can be found here.
In the House of Commons, affirmative instruments are automatically referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee for debate unless a motion for the instrument to be debated on the Floor of the House is tabled. Regulations relating to terrorism and security are automatically considered on the Floor of the House where they can be debated by all MPs for up to 90 minutes, but more usually the bulk of affirmative instruments are debated in committee.
Delegated Legislation Committees are composed of 18 MPs nominated by the party whips to reflect the composition of the House. Debates in these committees can last up to 90 minutes and are conducted on a motion that ‘the committee has considered the instrument’. Following the debate in Committee, an approval motion is put formally to the House without debate on a separate day. If a debate is held on the Floor of the House, the approval motion question is put immediately after the debate. The vast majority of approval motions in the Commons are resolved without division, but if dissent is indicated the vote is deferred and MPs cast their vote by ballot paper between 11.30am and 2pm on the following Wednesday. This has happened on four occasions in the current session.
In the House of Lords a motion to approve an affirmative instrument can be taken in either Grand Committee or on the Floor of the House. In a similar vein to the House of Commons, if an affirmative instrument is debated in Committee, an approval motion is put formally to the House without debate on a separate day.
Unlike primary legislation, the scrutiny stages for statutory instruments in both Houses run concurrently but the majority of affirmative instruments are approved by the House of Commons before the House of Lords has approved them.
Cabinet Office guidance advises government departments to allow around six sitting weeks for the passage of an affirmative instrument through all its parliamentary stages. This allows for both the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to consider the instrument and report on it within 12 to 16 days of it being laid. In the House of Lords, an approval motion cannot be moved until the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has reported on the instrument. This is a scrutiny reserve that the House of Commons does not observe.
Given that the instrument prescribes time periods that begin in a little over two weeks, it is expected that its progress through the parliamentary stages will be rapid and not in keeping with the usual 6-7 week process.
On the fourth anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Dr Sarah Whitmore will be speaking to us about how the Ukrainian Parliament has functioned under wartime conditions. 6:00pm-7:30pm on Tuesday 24 February 2026 at the Houses of Parliament, Westminster
Why is Britain’s first female Cabinet Minister largely forgotten? Historian Nan Sloane discusses her new biography of Margaret Bondfield, the trade unionist who became the first woman in the British Cabinet. Rising from harsh shop-floor conditions to national prominence, Bondfield took office as Minister of Labour in 1929 at the onset of the Great Depression. As economic crisis split the Labour Party, her reputation never recovered. Was she a pioneer, pragmatist, or unfairly judged? Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS
Labour MP Neil Duncan-Jordan reflects on rebelling against the whip and calling for Keir Starmer to resign, as we assess the fallout from the Mandelson–Epstein affair and its implications for the Government’s legislative programme and House of Lords reform. We examine Gordon Brown’s sweeping standards proposals, question whether they would restore public trust, revisit tensions over the assisted dying bill in the Lord and discuss two key Procedure Committee reports on Commons debates and internal elections. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS
The Restoration and Renewal Client Board’s latest report once again confirms what Parliament has known for nearly a decade: the cheapest, quickest and safest way to restore the Palace of Westminster is for MPs and Peers to move out during the works. The “full decant” option was endorsed in 2018 and reaffirmed repeatedly since. Remaining in the building could more than double costs, extend works into the 2080s, and increase risks to safety, accessibility and security. With the Palace already deteriorating and millions spent each year on patchwork repairs, further delay would itself be an expensive course of action, one that defers decisions without offering a viable alternative.
With the Government investigating allegations of foreign influence in British politics, we are joined by John Pullinger, Chair of the Electoral Commission, to take stock of the health and resilience of the UK’s electoral system. Our discussion ranges widely over the pressures facing elections and campaigning today, and what issues Parliament may need to grapple with in a future elections bill.
