Ahead of detailed consideration of the Nationality and Borders Bill in Committee in the House of Commons from 19 October, this briefing paper focuses on five clauses in the Bill that contain delegated powers that are of particular concern and that highlight different aspects of the problems with the system of delegated powers.
Dheemanth Vangimalla
Researcher, Hansard Society
Dheemanth joined the Hansard Society in July 2021 as a Researcher to contribute to the Review of Delegated Legislation. His role also involves supporting the day-to-day delivery of the Society’s legislative monitoring service, the Statutory Instrument Tracker®.
Dheemanth has a diverse professional background that includes experience in both the legal and non-legal sectors. He completed his MBBS degree at the University of East Anglia. He has since attained a Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) while working full-time as a junior doctor at an NHS hospital trust. He has previously conducted legal research with the hospital’s legal services department. As a research assistant, he has also contributed to a public international law project concerning citizenship and statelessness. Additionally, he has experience conducting scientific and laboratory-based research during his BMedSci degree in Molecular Therapeutics at Queen Mary University of London.
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
While these delegated powers might appear to be merely technical matters, in this as in most Bills they raise important questions of constitutional, legal, and procedural principle that matter, regardless of party allegiance or views on the policy merits of the Bill. The scope and design of the delegation of power sought in any Bill raise important questions for MPs that go to the heart of their role as legislators. MPs should be clear about the level of authority they are delegating to government Ministers and be confident that they will not regret forgoing their ability to fully scrutinise future government decisions.
The Hansard Society has long argued that the delegated legislation system – delegated powers in Bills and the resulting Statutory Instruments – is flawed and now represents one of the most significant constitutional challenges of our time. With the support of the Legal Education Foundation, we have therefore embarked on a Review of Delegated Legislation.
As part of the Review, we will be examining the delegation of powers in a range of government Bills and drawing attention to some of the clauses of greatest concern. The Nationality and Borders Bill is the second Bill we have examined in this way, after the Health and Care Bill.
Our analysis draws heavily on ‘legislative standards’ which we have derived from reports of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee (DPRRC). The DPRRC is an influential committee and provides the nearest thing to a form of ‘jurisprudence’ (or ‘legisprudence’) in the area of delegated powers.
The Nationality and Borders Bill proposes to make changes to several existing Acts and introduce measures relating to British nationality law, illegal migration, the asylum system, supporting victims of modern slavery and disrupting criminal networks behind people-smuggling. The Bill contains 71 clauses and five Schedules. Its Delegated Powers Memorandum (DPM) states that the Bill contains a total of 13 substantive clauses creating new or amending existing delegated powers, three of which include powers that can be exercised to amend primary legislation (‘Henry VIII powers’). The Bill also includes six placeholder clauses. The placeholder clauses are drafted as regulation-making powers that the government has said it intends to “replace … with substantive provisions ahead of Committee stage in the House of Commons". However, as of midday on 12 October 2021, the government amendments containing the proposed new substantive clauses have yet to be published. The Hansard Society has commented separately on the way in which the government’s use of placeholder clauses in this Bill hampers effective scrutiny, and – given that they are to be amended – this briefing does not analyse any of the placeholder clauses.
This briefing falls into two main parts, followed by two appendices:
Part 1: an overview of the Bill and a summary of our key concerns about five clauses, because of the delegated powers they contain.
Part 2: a detailed analysis of the five clauses of concern, drawing on the Bill and the accompanying Explanatory Notes (EN) and Delegated Powers Memorandum (DPM).
Appendix I: a list of key questions that MPs may wish to consider when scrutinising the scope and design of the delegated powers sought in any Bill.
Appendix II: a glossary of key procedural terms.
The five clauses of concern are:
Clause 10: Differential treatment of refugees;
Clause 12: Requirement to make asylum claim at ‘designated place’;
Clause 24: Accelerated detained appeals;
Clause 26 and Schedule 3: Removal of asylum seeker to safe country;
Clause 67: Transitional and consequential provision.
Four thematic questions run through these clauses:
Are MPs content with the use of the ‘negative’ rather than the ‘affirmative’ scrutiny procedure, given that the former will provide little or no opportunity for Members to effectively scrutinise the exercise of these powers in the future by Ministers of this or any future Government?
Are MPs content with the least rigorous level of scrutiny – the ‘negative’ procedure – being applied to the exercise of powers which are functionally equivalent to a ‘Henry VIII power’? (That is, although the power is not one that can be exercised directly to ‘amend, repeal or revoke’ primary legislation previously approved by Parliament, the way the power is exercised has the effect of doing so indirectly.)
Are MPs content with the lack of detail on the face of the Bill in relation to the way in which some of these powers may be exercised? If so, are the proposed scrutiny procedures for the exercise of these powers sufficient to ensure the desired degree of parliamentary control when the powers eventually come to be used?
Are MPs content with the proposed delegation of power in areas where there is concern that Ministers may, by delegated legislation, breach international law?
Vagimalla, D. (2022) The Nationality and Borders Bill: Delegated Powers (London: Hansard Society)
This work is supported by the Legal Education Foundation as part of the Hansard Society's Delegated Legislation Review.
The UK Spending Review outlines how Government funds will be allocated over several years. Unlike the Budget, which raises revenue, the Review decides how it is spent. But how is it approved? What role does Parliament play if it doesn’t vote on the Review itself? This blog explores how the Spending Review works, how it differs from the Budget, and how Parliament holds the Government to account through the Estimates process.
On Friday 13 June, the House of Commons will once again debate the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which would legalise assisted dying in England and Wales. Specifically, it will hold a second day of Report Stage, during which the whole House will debate and vote on amendments. This briefing explains the structure of Report Stage, what happened on the first day of Report Stage, how amendments are selected and grouped, on which amendments a decision can still be taken, and the likely sequence of events this Friday, including whether a final vote will take place.
The Chancellor, Rachel Reeves MP, will deliver a statement on the Spending Review. MPs will resume Report Stage of the assisted dying bill and debate key legislation on football governance, mental health, and planning and infrastructure. Peers and MPs are expected to resolve their standoff over AI and copyright in the Data (Use and Access) Bill. The Commons Defence Committee will hear from the lead reviewers of the Strategic Defence Review, while a Lords Committee will examine the Chagos Archipelago sovereignty issue. The Hansard Society’s Director will give evidence to the Modernisation Committee about access to the House of Commons and its procedures.
In this episode, we explore why ministers keep bypassing Parliament to make major announcements to the media — and whether returning to the Despatch Box might help clarify their message. We unpack the Lords' uphill battle to protect creators’ rights in the Data Use and Access Bill, challenge claims that the Assisted Dying Bill lacks scrutiny, and examine early findings from a Speaker’s Conference on improving security for MPs, as threats and intimidation against politicians continue to rise. Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.
Our evidence on treaty scrutiny has been published by the House of Lords International Agreements Committee. Our submission outlines the problems with the existing framework for treaty scrutiny and why legislative and cultural change are needed to improve Parliament's scrutiny role. Our evidence joins calls for a parliamentary consent vote for the most significant agreements, a stronger role for Parliament in shaping negotiating mandates and monitoring progress, and a sifting committee tasked with determining which agreements warrant the greatest scrutiny.
