Delegated Legislation: Controls

Introduction

Given the enormous volume of delegated legislation — over 3,000 statutory instruments each year, plus Orders in Council and bye-laws — effective controls are essential to ensure that unelected bodies do not abuse the powers delegated to them by Parliament. Without proper oversight, delegated legislation could undermine the democratic process and the rule of law.

Controls on delegated legislation operate at two levels: parliamentary controls (exercised by Parliament itself) and judicial controls (exercised by the courts through judicial review). This lesson examines both sets of controls in detail, evaluates their effectiveness, and considers the broader advantages and disadvantages of delegated legislation.

---

Parliamentary Controls

Parliament exercises several forms of control over delegated legislation. These controls reflect the principle that Parliament, as the sovereign law-making body, should retain oversight of the powers it delegates.

The Enabling Act Itself

The most fundamental parliamentary control is the parent/enabling Act that grants the delegated power in the first place. Parliament can:

• Define the scope of the power — specifying exactly what the delegate can and cannot do
• Require consultation — the Act may require the delegate to consult specified bodies before making the legislation
• Specify procedures — the Act determines whether the affirmative or negative procedure applies
• Set time limits — the Act may provide that delegated powers expire after a certain period (a "sunset clause")
• Retain the power to repeal — Parliament can always amend or repeal the enabling Act, removing the delegated power entirely

Affirmative Procedure

As discussed in the previous lesson, the affirmative procedure requires the statutory instrument to be approved by a vote in both Houses of Parliament before it takes effect. This provides a meaningful level of scrutiny because:

• MPs and peers must actively vote to approve the instrument
• The instrument must be debated (though debates are often short and poorly attended)
• The government must explain and justify the instrument

However, the affirmative procedure has limitations:

• Debates are often held in Delegated Legislation Committees rather than on the floor of the House, limiting participation
• The government's majority usually ensures approval
• Parliament can only approve or reject the entire instrument — it cannot amend it

Negative Procedure

The negative procedure provides less scrutiny. The instrument is laid before Parliament and automatically becomes law after 40 days unless either House passes a prayer for annulment (a motion to reject the instrument).

Weaknesses of the negative procedure:

• Very few instruments are actually prayed against
• Even when a prayer is tabled, the government can use its majority to defeat it
• Many MPs are unaware of instruments passing through the negative procedure
• The 40-day window may pass during recess

Key Statistic: In over 70 years of the negative procedure, the House of Commons has never successfully annulled a statutory instrument (though the Lords has done so very occasionally).

Scrutiny Committees

Parliament has established several committees to scrutinise delegated legislation:

Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (JCSI)

The JCSI (also known as the "technical scrutiny committee") reviews statutory instruments on technical grounds. It examines whether:

• The instrument is within the powers granted by the enabling Act (intra vires)
• The instrument is clearly drafted
• The instrument has been properly laid before Parliament
• There has been an unjustifiable delay in publication or laying

The JCSI does not consider the merits or policy of the instrument — only its technical quality.

Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (House of Lords)

This committee examines the policy merits of statutory instruments and draws the attention of the House of Lords to instruments that:

• Are politically or legally important
• May inappropriately implement EU obligations (historically)
• May imperfectly achieve their policy objectives
• Need further elucidation

Select Committees

Departmental select committees in the House of Commons may also scrutinise delegated legislation within their remit, though this is not their primary function.

graph TD
    A["Parliamentary Controls"] --> B["Enabling Act"]
    A --> C["Affirmative Procedure"]
    A --> D["Negative Procedure"]
    A --> E["Scrutiny Committees"]
    B --> F["Defines scope, procedures, limits"]
    C --> G["Must be voted on and approved"]
    D --> H["Becomes law unless annulled in 40 days"]
    E --> I["JCSI - Technical review"]
    E --> J["Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee - Policy review"]
    style A fill:#3498db,color:#fff
    style C fill:#27ae60,color:#fff
    style D fill:#e74c3c,color:#fff

Henry VIII Clauses

A Henry VIII clause is a provision in an Act of Parliament that gives a minister the power to amend or repeal provisions of the parent Act itself (or other primary legislation) using delegated legislation. The name derives from King Henry VIII, who used the Statute of Proclamations 1539 to give royal proclamations the force of statute.

Why Henry VIII clauses are controversial:

• They allow the executive to change primary legislation without full parliamentary scrutiny
• They effectively allow ministers to rewrite Acts of Parliament
• They undermine the principle of parliamentary sovereignty

Example: The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 contained extensive Henry VIII clauses, allowing ministers to make regulations amending or revoking retained EU law. This was heavily criticised by parliamentary committees and legal commentators.

Example: The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 also contained Henry VIII powers enabling ministers to revoke retained EU law by statutory instrument.

The House of Lords Constitution Committee and the House of Commons Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee regularly raise concerns about the growing use of Henry VIII clauses.

---

Judicial Controls

The courts exercise control over delegated legislation through judicial review. Unlike Acts of Parliament (which cannot be challenged under the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty), delegated legislation can be challenged in the courts.

Ultra Vires

The central concept in judicial control of delegated legislation is ultra vires — a Latin term meaning "beyond the powers." If delegated legislation goes beyond the powers granted by the parent Act, it is ultra vires and can be declared void (invalid) by the courts.

There are two types of ultra vires:

Substantive Ultra Vires

Substantive ultra vires occurs when the content of the delegated legislation exceeds the scope of the power granted by the parent Act. The delegate has done something that the parent Act did not authorise.

Example: R v Secretary of State for Social Security, ex parte Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants [1997]

The Secretary of State made regulations under the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 that removed welfare benefits from asylum seekers who did not claim asylum immediately upon arrival in the UK. The Court of Appeal held that the regulations were substantively ultra vires because they effectively rendered the right to asylum under the parent Act nugatory (useless). The regulations went beyond what the parent Act authorised.

Procedural Ultra Vires