The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill is scheduled for its Second Reading debate in the House of Commons on Monday 27 June 2022. This briefing on the delegated powers in the Bill analyses six areas of particular concern and proposes ways they might be mitigated during the Bill's passage through Parliament.
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
The six areas that we cover in detail are:
1. General matters that apply to all delegated powers in the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, including:
a clause that in effect enables all regulation-making powers in the Bill to function as 'Henry VIII' powers, thereby enabling Ministers to amend, repeal or otherwise alter the effects of Acts of Parliament - including this Bill once it receives Royal Assent - by regulations;
the fact that regulations made under the Bill are subject to the ‘negative’ procedure, unless they amend an Act of Parliament or make retrospective provision, in which case they are subject to the ‘affirmative’ procedure – an approach that does not take into consideration the fact that some regulations that do not happen to amend Acts or make retrospective provision can still be legally or politically significant, warranting active parliamentary approval.
2. Drafting that enables Ministers to exercise powers to make provision that they consider “appropriate in connection with” other provisions.
3. A power that enables Ministers to “engage in conduct” relevant to the Northern Ireland Protocol (meaning, apparently but not exclusively, to engage in sub-legislative activity) without any parliamentary oversight.
4. A power that enables Minsters to implement – by regulations subject to limited parliamentary scrutiny – any new agreement with the EU which amends or replaces the Northern Ireland Protocol.
5. A clause that disapplies the hybrid instrument procedure, with no alternative safeguards put in place.
6. A power to ‘sub-delegate’ power to devolved administrations and determine the scrutiny that is to apply to the exercise of that ‘sub-delegated power’.
We make no comment on the Bill’s legal or policy merits. None of our suggestions about ways in which the drafting of delegated powers could be improved would prevent the implementation of the Bill’s intended policy. Our conclusions are intended to buttress the role of Parliament in scrutinising future executive action and regulations arising from this Bill once it achieves Royal Assent.
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.
Hansard Society (June 2022), The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill: Delegated Powers (London)
This work is supported by the Legal Education Foundation as part of the Hansard Society's Delegated Legislation Review.
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
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.
Why do UK Prime Ministers seem to burn out so quickly? We are joined by historian Robert Saunders to examine why the role has become so punishing in recent years. From Brexit and COVID to fractured parties, rigid governing conventions and relentless media scrutiny, the discussion explores what has gone wrong – and what kind of leadership and political culture might be needed to make the job survivable again.
