header-logo header-logo

15 June 2016
Issue: 7703 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Parliament to Executive power-shift critcised by Peers

"Constitutionally inappropriate shift of power"

A “constitutionally inappropriate shift of power from Parliament to the Executive” has caused concerns among Peers.

In its sessional report on the 2015-16 Session, published this week, the House of Lords Constitution Committee highlights several Bills that give ministers too much discretion when implementing legislation. The Bills include the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, the Psychoactive Substances Bill, the Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill and the Childcare Bill.

The report states: “The government appears to be seeking greater discretion in how it implements and interprets legislation while simultaneously seeking to restrict the right of the House of Lords to subsequently scrutinise and approve or reject the government’s use of delegated powers.”

A separate report, also published this week, on the Children and Social Work Bill, reiterates Peers’ concerns. It questions why the creation of a new regulator of social workers is being delegated to the secretary of state, rather than being set out in statute so it can be properly scrutinised by Parliament. It also points out that the Bill allows ministers to use regulation to establish new criminal offences—currently undefined and related to other undefined aspects of the Bill and therefore impossible for the House to scrutinise.

Lord Lang, Chairman of the Committee, said the Bill “continues a worrying trend in which Parliament is asked to agree legislation that is lacking crucial details that allow it properly to scrutinise government proposals.” He said such changes should be set out in primary legislation to allow proper debate, scrutiny and improvement.

Issue: 7703 / Categories: Legal News
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