Report comment

The Fees Order was approved under the affirmative, not negative, procedure (see para. 15 of the judgment). I haven't checked whether the Order was the subject of any comment by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, who scrutinize draft legislation on the basis of vires; it was the JCSI's comments on the proposed increase in probate fees (that the level of increase was akin to a tax that ought to be approved by Act of Parliament) that led to the latter being withdrawn (for now).

The following excerpt from the impact assessment, quoted in the judgment at paragraph 13, made me cringe:
“This assumes that there are no positive externalities from consumption. In other words, ET and EAT use does not lead to gains to society that exceed the sum of the gains to consumers and producers of these services.”
What on earth does this verbiage ("no positive externalities from consumption") actually mean? I hope the authors knew. It seems that neither they, nor their policy colleagues, have a grasp of basic economics, as illustrated by paragraphs 99-100 of the judgment, or of real life (paras. 55 and 90-96).