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 end of the transition period is likely to expose even more fully the scope of the policy-making that the government can carry out via Statutory Instruments, as it uses its new powers to develop post-Brexit law. However, there are few signs yet of a wish to reform delegated legislation scrutiny, on the part of government or the necessary coalition of MPs.
Parliament’s role around the end of the Brexit transition and conclusion of the EU future relationship treaty is a constitutional failure to properly scrutinise the executive and the law. As the UK moves to do things differently after 1 January, MPs must do more to ensure they can better discharge their responsibilities regarding the making of UK treaties.
The EU (Future Relationship) Bill is to be considered by both Houses in just one sitting day. How unusual is such an expedited timetable and how much time will parliamentarians really have to look at the Bill? How will MPs participate in proceedings given Covid-19 restrictions? And how will proceedings, particularly the amendment process, work on the day?
The Coronavirus pandemic has added to the questions surrounding the nature of the Parliament that should emerge from the Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal programme. But, with concerns over the programme’s governance and public engagement rising, the report arising from the current review of the programme will not now be published this year.
The debate about remote participation in House of Commons proceedings raises critical questions about what constitutes a ‘good parliamentarian’, what ‘fair’ participation looks like, and who gets to decide. As things stand, the exclusion from much parliamentary business of pregnant women, among others, undermines equality of political representation.
Disputed parliamentary election results – often taking months to resolve – were a frequent feature of English political culture before the reforms of the 19th century. But how could defeated candidates protest the result of an election, and how were such disputes resolved?