The Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee (DPRRC) has published its eleventh report of session 2024–2025. The following Bills were drawn to the special attention of the House: the Private Members’ Bills: Introductory Note; the Regulated and Other Activities (Mandatory reporting of Child Sexual Abuse) Bill; and the Crown Estate (Wales) Bill.

The Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee (DPRRC) has published its seventeenth report of session 2024–2025. The following Bills were drawn to the special attention of the House: the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill; the Private Members’ Bills: Introductory Note; the House of Lords (Peerage Nominations) Bill [HL]; and National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill.

Pensions analysis: The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) (General Regulatory Chamber) has ruled that an employer did not have a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with an Unpaid Contributions Notice (UCN) in respect of pension contributions that should have been paid to employee A. The Pensions Regulator (the Regulator) had sent the appellant a UCN which required it to pay the missing pension contributions as well as to provide evidence of compliance. The appellant failed to complete the steps set out in the UCN by the deadline specified in the notice and the Regulator therefore proceeded to issue a fixed penalty notice. The key issue the Tribunal needed to determine was whether the appellant had a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the UCN. The appellant relied on three key arguments, including that they had passed the UCN to their accountant to deal with and employee A was unsure whether to commit to employment. The Tribunal ruled that employee A should have received pension contributions under automatic enrolment from the start of his employment. Written by Rowena Wisniewska Sethi, barrister at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square.

Dangerous materials which are banned either through employer preference or statutory requirements from being used to construct any works

1 The Consultant warrants to the Beneficiary that: 1.1 any materials which the Consultant specifies or authorises for use in the construction of any part of

Consultant 1 The Consultant warrants to the Employer that: 1.1 any materials which the Consultant specifies or authorises for use in the construction of any part of the Works are in accordance with relevant British Standard specifications, codes of practice and good building practice current

Arbitration analysis: In the case of Extramarks Education India Pvt Ltd v Saraswati Shishu Mandir, the Delhi High Court addressed the circumstances in which an arbitrator can be replaced under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (‘1996 Act’). The court held that non-responsiveness of an arbitrator or their inability to conclude the arbitration within a time fixed by the parties would necessitate their removal and appointment of a substitute arbitrator to continue the proceedings. Moreover, termination of an arbitrator’s mandate is not the same as termination of the arbitration proceedings. This ruling reinforces judicial support for overcoming procedural obstacles to uphold the integrity of arbitration as a method of dispute resolution. Written by Ila Kapoor, partner, Ananya Aggarwal, Counsel & Anamta Khan, associate at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co New Delhi.

Arbitration analysis: In December 2023, a division bench (2 judge bench) of the Delhi High Court (DHC) held that the limitation period to set aside an arbitral award under section 34 of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act (A&C Act) only commences when a signed copy of an arbitral award is delivered to the ‘parties’ to the arbitration agreement, and not their agents or counsels. In holding so, the DHC settled the law on the issue of effective service and the consequential commencement date of the limitation period, clarifying that the award must be delivered to a person who, inter alia, has knowledge of the arbitration proceedings. This is also a useful reminder in the context of monolithic organisations, such as the government, as well as multi-party arbitrations. Written by Juhi Gupta, principal associate and Prachi Gupta, associate, of Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co.

Overview of enforcement time limits Section 171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) sets out time limits, after which no enforcement action in respect of a breach of planning control can be taken, unless there has been deliberate concealment of the breach. The time periods are: • for operational development, four years from the date on which the operations were ‘substantially completed’ in Wales and in England where the operations were substantially completed before 25 April 2024, and ten years in England where the operations were substantially completed on or after 25 April 2024 (see Practice Note: Substantial completion and planning enforcement for more information on the legal test for substantial completion) • for breaches of planning control consisting of the change of use of any building to ‘use as a single dwellinghouse’, four years from the date of the breach in Wales and in England where the breach occurred before 25 April 2024, and ten years in England where the breach occurred on or after 25 April 2024, and • in the case

This Practice Note explains how delicensing operates for a nuclear site under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 (NuIA 1965). It considers the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR)’s Licensing Nuclear Installations guide (LNI Guidance) and highlights some key legal and project considerations for nuclear operators, developers, nuclear reactor vendors and landowners. This Practice Note is part of a series of three practice notes on nuclear licensing. The other two notes focus on: • licensing, see Practice Note: Obtaining a licence for a GB nuclear site—key considerations • relicensing, see Practice Note: Relicensing a GB nuclear site—key considerations It should be noted that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) established the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce in 2025 to review several aspects of the civil nuclear sector, including licensing. The resulting final report (known as the Fingleton Report) was published on 24 November 2025 and makes various recommendations which DESNZ has subsequently accepted. Changes to the nuclear regulatory regime affecting licensing are to be laid out in a forthcoming

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived as of July 2020. On 31 January 2020, the UK ceased to be an EU Member State and entered an implementation period, during which it continued to be subject to EU law. During that period, the EU’s GDPR applied in the UK and the UK generally continued to be treated as an EU (and EEA) state for EEA and UK data protection law purposes. Any references to EEA or EU states in this Practice Note could therefore be read to also include the UK until the end of the implementation period. For further guidance, see Practice Note: Brexit—implications for data protection [Archived]. Following the end of the Brexit implementation period: (a) the EU GDPR is replaced under UK law by a ‘UK GDPR’ regime that is heavily based on the EU GDPR (including an equivalent Article 17 (the right to erasure)), see Practice Note: The UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR); (b) decisions of the EU’s Court of Justice (such as Google Spain

This Practice Note explains why it is so important to improve the efficiency with which work is done and how this can be achieved without diluting quality. Why is work efficiency becoming so important for lawyers? Between 1992 and 2008 the UK economy recorded 64 quarters of economic growth. During this period, most law firms could achieve higher profits each year by increasing their prices before it was even necessary to look for additional work. Most firms saw a growth in the rates they could charge and in the volumes of work; as a result, profits grew strongly. Since then, the credit crunch and recession have made it far harder for firms, as fee income levels have fallen due to a combination of: • lower volumes of work, and • considerable pricing pressure being exerted by clients who have begun to feel confident in challenging the fees that lawyers have charged Not surprisingly, if prices have fallen and there is little sign of them increasing again, it is becoming increasingly