Delegated legislation in the UK
Delegated Legislation in the UK
What is Delegated Legislation?
Delegated legislation (also called secondary legislation) refers to laws made by an individual or body under powers granted by an Act of Parliament (the parent or enabling Act). It allows detailed rules and regulations to be created without the need for a full Act of Parliament each time.
Types of Delegated Legislation
Statutory Instruments (SIs): The most common form, including regulations, rules, and orders.
Bylaws: Made by local authorities or certain public corporations.
Orders in Council: Made by the Privy Council, often for emergency or constitutional matters.
Why Delegated Legislation?
Efficiency: Parliament can focus on broad policy while delegating technical details.
Flexibility: Easier to update or amend than Acts.
Expertise: Enables specialized bodies or ministers with technical knowledge to make detailed rules.
Parliamentary Control of Delegated Legislation
Affirmative resolution procedure: Some delegated laws require explicit parliamentary approval.
Negative resolution procedure: Delegated laws become law unless annulled by Parliament within a time frame.
Scrutiny committees: Such as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Judicial Control of Delegated Legislation
Courts can review delegated legislation on several grounds:
Ultra vires (beyond powers): If the delegated legislation exceeds the powers granted by the enabling Act.
Procedural impropriety: Failure to follow required procedures.
Unreasonableness: If the legislation is irrational or oppressive.
Key Case Law on Delegated Legislation
1. R v. Home Secretary, ex parte Fire Brigades Union (1995)
Facts: The Home Secretary promised to introduce a new compensation scheme by delegated legislation but later abandoned it.
Holding: The House of Lords ruled the Home Secretary was acting unlawfully by not implementing the delegated legislation power properly, breaching legitimate expectations.
Significance: Established that delegated powers must be exercised according to the enabling Act and promises made.
Impact: Reinforces limits on ministerial discretion in delegated legislation.
2. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ Case) (1985)
Facts: Government banned GCHQ employees from joining trade unions via an Order in Council under delegated powers.
Holding: The court held that even Orders in Council are subject to judicial review for procedural fairness and reasonableness.
Significance: Confirmed that delegated legislation is subject to judicial control for abuse of power.
Impact: Strengthened the scope of judicial review over delegated legislation.
3. R v. Secretary of State for Social Services, ex parte Association of Metropolitan Authorities (1986)
Facts: Challenged regulations that altered local government finance arrangements.
Holding: The court held that the regulations were ultra vires because they went beyond the powers granted by the enabling Act.
Significance: Reinforced the ultra vires doctrine as a primary check on delegated legislation.
Impact: Courts maintain strict control to ensure delegated legislation stays within statutory limits.
4. R (on the application of Rogers) v. Swindon NHS Primary Care Trust (2006)
Facts: The NHS authority delegated powers to make decisions about funding treatments via delegated legislation.
Holding: The court held that the delegated decision was lawful but emphasized the need for rationality and adherence to procedural fairness.
Significance: Shows courts can uphold delegated decisions if they comply with legal principles.
Impact: Clarifies the balance between administrative discretion and legal limits.
5. Agricultural Training Board v Aylesbury Mushrooms Ltd (1972)
Facts: The Agricultural Training Board made regulations affecting mushroom growers but failed to consult as required.
Holding: The regulations were invalidated due to procedural impropriety.
Significance: Established that failure to follow required consultation procedures can render delegated legislation unlawful.
Impact: Emphasizes the procedural safeguards in delegated lawmaking.
6. R v. Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Ostler (1976)
Facts: Challenged a delegated power exercised with insufficient clarity.
Holding: The court held that delegated legislation must be clear and not ambiguous.
Significance: Highlights the principle that delegated legislation should be understandable and not vague.
Impact: Protects individuals from arbitrary or unclear rules.
Summary Table: Delegated Legislation and Case Law
| Case | Issue | Holding/Principle | Impact on Delegated Legislation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fire Brigades Union (1995) | Ministerial discretion | Delegated powers must be exercised per enabling Act | Limits ministerial abuse of delegated power |
| GCHQ Case (1985) | Judicial review | Delegated legislation is subject to judicial review | Expands review over Orders in Council and similar acts |
| Association of Metropolitan Authorities (1986) | Ultra vires | Delegated legislation must stay within statutory powers | Reinforces ultra vires doctrine |
| Rogers v. Swindon NHS (2006) | Rationality & fairness | Delegated decisions must be rational and fair | Balances discretion with legality |
| Aylesbury Mushrooms (1972) | Procedural impropriety | Failure to consult invalidates delegated legislation | Emphasizes procedural safeguards |
| Ex parte Ostler (1976) | Clarity and precision | Delegated legislation must not be vague | Protects against unclear rules |
Conclusion
Delegated legislation in the UK is an essential tool for efficient governance but operates within a framework of legal and procedural checks. Parliamentary oversight and judicial review work together to prevent abuse and ensure delegated laws align with the enabling statute and principles of fairness and reasonableness.
RELATED Blog
0 comments