header-logo header-logo

13 October 2020
Issue: 7906 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Brexit: Law in a rush?

The Public Law Project (PLP) has highlighted serious flaws in the parliamentary process for delegated legislation in the run-up to Brexit

Its report, ‘Plus ça change? Brexit and the flaws of the delegated legislative system’, published this week, focuses on hundreds of statutory instruments (SIs) that were ‘rubber-stamped’ ahead of Brexit. During the 2017-2019 parliamentary session, 1,835 SIs were laid in total, 615 of which were Brexit-related (about a third). The wordcount of Treasury and HMRC instruments increased fourfold and the average page length of Brexit-related instruments was double the norm.

The report raises concerns about the lack of impact assessments, which were either ‘poor or non-existent’. It highlights the lack of parliamentary debate, noting the government used the urgency procedure 30 times to give SIs immediate legal effect, before they had been debated. Moreover, Henry VIII powers were used by ministers to amend primary legislation that had already been passed by Parliament, in 142 of the 622 Brexit SIs.

The number of legislative errors and mistakes increased, resulting in 97 SIs being laid before Exit Day to fix the mistakes of earlier SIs introduced in the same parliamentary session.

Dr Joe Tomlinson, the PLP’s research director, said: ‘It is the combination of deficiencies that is most concerning.

‘SIs are not meant to bring about important changes in policy because of the lack of scrutiny they allow, but many did exactly that. Parliament was shut out of a significant part of law-making.

‘Those instruments touched on every part of UK life, from food safety to immigration to transport. Very significant policies such as alterations to deportation thresholds and changes to social security law were placed in secondary legislation with no explanation as to why and no mechanism to check the government’s decision to do so.’

Tomlinson called for reform, warning the same problems were now arising in relation to COVID-19.

Issue: 7906 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , Constitutional law
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll