Statutory Instruments are used as a form of delegated legislation under almost all Acts of Parliament and confer powers on the relevant officer of the govt to enact various parts of a parent Act or various secondary laws deriving from it. This enables laws to become laws immediately they are signed off by the SoS or minister or other bod.
The power to use SIs derive from the relevant Act which means Parliament has pre-approved their use in the circumstances set out in the Act.
The big obfuscation here came with the govt using powers under a near 40 year old Act (therefore avoiding current scrutiny) rather than under either a brand new Act or Acts (despite the fact they actually created them - i.e. the Coronavirus Acts) or an alternative Act already in force but which had greater controls/scrutiny built into it.
In other words, during the 1980s Parliament gave Hancock et al the powers they are now using.
Thank you all for the replies. I appreciate it.
One more point to make on the subject: isn't therena ring of familiarity in this, related to BoJo's illusory proroguation of Parliament as a means to sidestepping parliamentary scrutiny re Brexit? This is a repeated tactic now. The first time it was found illegal. This time there was no proroguation, just timing after adjournment, but the frustration of parliamentary authority is the same, isn't it, and so is the Government doing this. Ugly.
One more point to make on the subject: isn't therena ring of familiarity in this, related to BoJo's illusory proroguation of Parliament as a means to sidestepping parliamentary scrutiny re Brexit? This is a repeated tactic now. The first time it was found illegal. This time there was no proroguation, just timing after adjournment, but the frustration of parliamentary authority is the same, isn't it, and so is the Government doing this. Ugly.
Yes, in principle if not specifics it is the same thing. Johnson can't handle the detail of a proper debate in Parliament so he has to take Parliament out of the equation. Hard to say exactly how many times previous govts of all colours have manoeuvred tactically around Parliamentary scrutiny - probably quite a lot, and "we" the mere voters, shrugged our shoulders and accepted it as part of how govt operates.
But you are right, on the two most prominent political issues of the last 12 months Johnson and his govt have manipulated Parliament into a position of weakness.
Someone else wrote above that we do not have a written constitution in the UK. That is partly true; some of our constitution does reside in statute which is of course written, but much of it also rests on convention.
My view which is that we need a modern codified written constitution of entrenched rights, which cannot be subverted by govt or by Parliament enacting new or enforcing previous laws, or manipulating Parliament in ways which are "unconstitutional".
This would also set out our British fundamemtal individual rights including freedom of expression and free speech which are currently under threat by new blasphemy laws and the creep of thought-police across the UK.
Generalissimo or Obergruppenführer? 😯
Please tell me how Boris Johnson changed the law of the UK without any other MP being present.
Johnson did not actually do this. Generalissimo Hancock did. As Secretary of State for "health" (what a sad bad joke) he used the 1984 Health Act to make new "Statutory Regulations". These are a kind of executive order that require no scrutiny or oversight.
The Simon Dolan case was all about abuse of power by Hancock. The Supreme Court refused to even hear the Dolan case, and so I now say the UK is dealing with Generalissimo Hancock.
Because of those precious lords and ladies on the Supreme Court, Herr Hancock now has more power than BoJo, and even the Queen. He can make new laws on the spot, without consulting parliament or anybody else.
