SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION ; ;Telecommunications licensing subordinate legislation purporting to modify statute to secure compliance with Community Directive express provisions required to repeal, amend or disapply primary legislation ;R v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex p Orange Personal Communications Services Ltd and another: QBD (Sullivan J): 25 October 2000 ;The applicants were two of the principal providers of mobile telephone communications in the UK. The Secretary of State, purporting to exercise powers pursuant to s.2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, made the Telecommunications (Licence Modification)(Standard Schedules) Regulations 1999 and the Telecommunications Operations Regulations 1999 which modified the licences under the Telecommunications Act 1984 held by the applicants and others to ensure that they complied with Licensing Directive (97/13/EC). ;The applicants sought judicial review of the regulations on the grounds that regulations under s.2(2) of the 1972 Act could not lawfully repeal, disapply or amend ss 12 to15 of the 1984 Act unless they did so expressly, and that conditions 56 and 56A inserted into the licences by the regulations were unlawful. ;David Pannick QC and Javan Herberg (instructed by Field Fisher Waterhouse) for the first applicant. Thomas de la Mare (instructed by Olswang) for the second applicant. David Anderson QC and Mark Hoskins (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State. ;Held, granting the application, that regulations under s.2(2) should state in clear terms what primary legislation was being repealed, amended or disapplied for the purposes of implementing the community obligations in question; that having conferred rights by primary legislation, Parliament was entitled to be told if the executive proposed to take them away; that the fact that the opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny of regulations under s.2(2) was so limited reinforced the need for clarity; that the executive retained a broad discretion to repeal or amend primary legislation by regulations but the second requirement in R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Ex p Spath Holme Ltd [2000] 3 WLR 141, applied to regulations made under s.2 of the 1972 Act; and that, accordingly, since the challenged regulations did not comply with that requirement, conditions 56 and 56A were unlawful. ; ; ;