Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee

lordlucas1

Each week a stack of papers lands on my desk – the regulations published by government that week. Today we considered 90 of them – a pile 6 inches thick.

 Doubtless I’ll find the chance to comment in more detail later. For today just two thoughts:

 Inflation is running at 10% plus if SIs are to be believed: vehicle registration charges up 10%, gangmasters’ fees up 12% – a steady patten of late.

 Government always claims that regulations have been properly consulted on – if ever you know that that is not so, drop us a line – it’d be a bit of sparkle to leaven the task.

To enjoy the Lords you have to like little things.

11 comments for “Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee

  1. Stuart
    25/03/2008 at 7:19 pm

    I suppose that these are what the Government’s political opponents refer to as “stealth taxes”. I wonder how much the Government’s income, collected through all these fees and charges, has increased over the last 10 years.

    On the question of the accuracy of the inflation rate (I know that the Conservatives published something on this today), I would say, as someone who does not own his own home, that house price inflation should be included in the inflation rate calculation. If that was the case then the Government might try and keep house prices down at a reasonable and affordable level.

  2. Bedd Gelert
    25/03/2008 at 10:44 pm

    Gosh, there does seem to be an awful lot of legislation going through – I wonder how much of it, to use the jargon, really ‘adds value’ ??

    I wonder if there is an element of the House Of Commons just churning out the stuff and thinking ‘We will let the House of Lords tidy it up’.

    Rather reminiscent of those IT people who shovel out new applications and think ‘We will let the testers find out what is wrong with it, and fix it later on..’

    I suspect many of the people reading the ‘Lords of the Blog’ will already listen to ‘Today In Parliament’ – if not I wholeheartedly make a personal recommendation to those who don’t to give it a try. It gets beyond the House of Commons slanging match and covers what goes on at Select Committees and in the House of Lords, and shoehorns it in to a manageable 30 minute segment.

    I’ve learned more about our democratic process through those half hour programmes than in decades of reading the newspapers. If only how much holiday those working in Westminster get ! Only teasing..

  3. ladytizzy
    26/03/2008 at 3:57 am

    For sparkle, do have a look at the comments left by the public, outlining their experience on gvt consultation exercises.

    Entitled ‘Effective Consultation’, the Ministry of Justice asked for opinions last year. Of course, ‘Have Your Say’ was open for only three months.
    Source

    I think you’ll find HIPs amongst your latest stack. I suppose, strictly speaking, this dog’s breakfast did go through a fair few consultants. Pity the gvt ignored all those who disagreed with them. Time to bring Baroness Andrews to this site!

  4. Tannhauser
    26/03/2008 at 8:56 am

    May i enquire as to what is meant by “Inflation is running at 10%”? What measure of inflation is being used? For what period and what particular industry is the estimate(i believe it is an estimate) is given?

  5. lordlucas1
    26/03/2008 at 3:56 pm

    We’re keeping a tally of all such increases. The current push above 10% only started a few months ago – don’t know why though I can of course guess.

    It’s not a scientific measure of inflation, but is one that ought (if government departments were keeping costs down) to average close to wage inflation – 5%-ish.

    Thankyou, ladytizzy, for that link: I had not seen it before, and I’ll discuss it next time I attend the committee. Some good suggestions there.

    We see a great deal of HIPs regulations, and generally blow a raspberry at them as being ill-thought-out and unlikely to be effective.

  6. Anthony Beck
    08/04/2008 at 10:55 am

    You helpfully say that “today” we considered 90 of them – SIs I suppose – do you really think serious consideration of so much legislation can take place in that time? Really would value a response as I try to teach this topic to law undergraduates.
    Thanks. AB.

  7. Jim Mortoza
    05/08/2010 at 9:22 pm

    I have tried very hard to bring to attention the statutory regulation of 2006 for certificate of entitlement to the right of abode. According to this statutory instrument it was done to prevent the possibilities of a person having both a certificate of entitlement and also a passport or an id card with the insinuation that one of them could be sold by the holders. However the effect was to remove the one and only form of evidence I had to enable me to prove my right of abode. In addition section 15 of the 2006 Act was further used then to state that I was subject to control even though a person who has the right of abode has this as a statutory right and this right does not expire because a travel document expires. It is this use of the statutory instrument 3145 I feel has been used unlawfully along with the 2006 act to misrepresent matters. It is clear from the following case mentioned below that the whole idea of duplicate documents was an excuse to in fact bring in control over those persons who have the right of abode. This was done to generate work and charge fees and every means available including the use of the 2006 Act was misrepresented to distort the law. A close scrutiny of the secondary instrument also shows it was introduced at the end of November 2006 around the Christmas holidays for Parliament and perhaps even went through without much of a through check to it. It also states in the explantory memorandum attached to it that no impact assessment was needed as it did not over ride primary legislation when in fact it has to the effect of imposing control over those who are not subject to control.

    Recently on the 4th of May a case was heard (SL Appellant and THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT ) in which a British Citizen had lost their passport and an order was given to have a certificate of entitlement place on another passport)
    http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2010/00164_ukut_iac_2010_sl_malaysia.html&query=%22right+of+abode%22+and+expired+or+passport&method=boolean

    This is an injustice I have tried to bring to the attention of the last home secretary and various authorities with no success.

  8. Jim Mortoza
    05/08/2010 at 9:36 pm

    The use of statutory instruments without proper impact assessment is not only dangerous but allows the executive to get around the primary legislation and make a mockery out of it. It should be open to compulsory debate and vote in parliament

  9. Jim Mortoza
    06/08/2010 at 2:27 am

    The statutory instruments such as 3145 on the certificate of entitlement on the right of abode was passed without any impact assessment and it was also passed on the basis that it did not over ride the primary legislations. However its effect was to do so and the policy attached has now been overturned on the 24th in a court of appeal.

Comments are closed.