This 2014 book was the first comprehensive study of the delegated legislation system at Westminster in nearly a century. The book opens up the process, through the presentation of detailed research and case studies; concludes that the current system is broken; and sets out proposals for comprehensive reform.
Most of the UK’s general public law is made not through Acts of Parliament but through delegated (or secondary) legislation, generally in the form of Statutory Instruments (SIs). Delegated legislation is crucial to the effective operation of government, from the social security system to immigration rules, legal aid to food labelling, rubbish bin collections to the national curriculum. But despite the volume and importance of such legislation, remarkably little public and media attention is normally paid to it.
‘The Devil is in the Detail: Parliament and Delegated Legislation’ opens up the delegated legislation process. It explores how, and by whom, decisions are made about what goes into primary legislation and what into secondary legislation. It looks at the evolution of delegated legislation, and sets out in detail how the delegated legislation process works in both Houses of Parliament. It also examines a number of legislative case studies that illustrate different aspects of the flaws in the current system.
‘The Devil is in the Detail’ concluded that the present system for the scrutiny of delegated legislation at Westminster is broken, especially in the House of Commons, and it set out a range of recommendations for comprehensive reform. Several years on, these reforms remain badly needed.
The research in ‘The Devil is in the Detail’ has provided the basis for the Hansard Society’s extensive subsequent work on delegated legislation at Westminster, and for the Society’s continued advocacy of reforms to the delegated legislation scrutiny process.
Table of contents
- Context and history: delegated legislation through the years
- The life-cycle: delegating power in the parental Act
- The life-cycle: Statutory Instruments
- Public Bodies Act 2011
- Draft Deregulation Bill 2013
- Localism Act 2011
- Welfare Reform Act 2012
- Policing and Crime Act 2009
- Banking Act 2009
- The efficacy of the parliamentary scrutiny process
Enjoy reading this? Please consider sharing it
The Hansard Society hosted two online hustings for the candidates in the 2021 Lord Speaker election. The first event, on 25 March, was chaired by the BBC’s parliamentary correspondent Mark D’Arcy; and the second, on 13 April, was chaired by Jackie Ashley, former political correspondent and broadcaster.
The Strategic Review of the Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal programme has been published, after 10 months’ work – but political factors mean that implementation of the programme’s main conclusion, that there will be a ‘full decant’ from the building while work takes place, remains in doubt.
In order to raise income, the government needs to obtain approval from Parliament for its taxation plans. The Budget process is the means by which the House of Commons considers the government’s plans to impose ‘charges on the people’ and its assessment of the wider state of the economy.
The Finance Bill enacts the government’s Budget provisions – its income-raising proposals and detailed tax changes. Parliament’s scrutiny and authorisation of these taxation plans are crucial in holding the government to account – between elections – for the money it raises and spends.
Lord Frost’s appointment as Minister of State in the Cabinet Office to lead on UK-EU relations brings some welcome clarity about future government arrangements in this area. However, it also raises challenges for parliamentary scrutiny, above all with respect to his status as a Member of the House of Lords.
There was controversy on 9 February over whether the government had used procedural trickery to swerve a backbench rebellion in the House of Commons on a clause inserted in the Trade Bill by the House of Lords. Apparently, it was something to do with ‘packaging’. What does that mean, and was it true? The answer is all about ‘ping-pong’.