Delegated legislation

Delegated legislation is a form of lawmaking with potential for both benefit and drawback. One significant advantage is the opportunity for efficient, expeditious policy making without the slowing down, or hampering, of Parliament’s general work. With finer policy details delegated to specifically qualified parties, Parliament is free to focus on broader issues. Plus, in the case of local statues and specific aspects of reform, certain civil authorities can be more qualified to assess particular situations, allowing for more informed decision-making.

Although, some would argue that unelected officials having the power to affect policy is in some way “undemocratic”, ultimately, all reform must be approved by Parliament ensuring that each piece of legislation receives formal review. (However, delegated legislators do also wield the power to amend or repeal acts of Parliament according the Henry VIII clauses. ) With the number of delegated legislative pieces in circulation, there’s an abiding concern that the sheer bulk of them is too excessive to 1) review properly and/or 2) supervise adequately.

This volume poses another disadvantage: the lacking public exposure of delegated legislation – much of the general public remains unaware of these policies, often including lawyers. 2. Discuss the impact of the principle of supremacy of European Community law on the principle of parliamentary sovereignty in the constitution of the United Kingdom (maximum 200 words). Despite longstanding conflict between European law and the laws of member states, ultimately, the European Union is the prevailing power. This was evidenced in the case of Costa vs.

ENEL (1964), a vitally relevant decision for the doctrine of EU supremacy. The issue of national law versus community law was put to the test when Mr. Costa challenged the Italian government on the issue of market distortion. The European Court of Justice supported national law and ruled in favor of the Italian government, leaving Mr. Costa without a platform as an individual citizen. This case demonstrated that laws stemming from Treaty could not be questioned or overridden by domestic legalities; because such actions begin to unravel the overall framework of community law, itself.

Member states are ultimately subject to EU law and sovereignty. The Macarthys vs. Smith case further grounded this relationship between EU law over national law. The courts ruled that national law was, in fact, subject to Europe. However, made provision for any specific instances in which Parliament breached European law. In such instances, courts were duty-bound to adhere to the established statues, as was the situation in the factortame cases. All legislation (future and present) must coincide with existing European law without discord.