Report comment

Hello Mr Maloney - I am the "Anon" of yesterday (27/7) @13:18 and 15:30. I wasn't implying (or I certainly didn't intend to) what you thought in your post @ 15:58 and I was certainly not making any political point either. I understood your earlier comment @ 10:12 to say that the Fees Order had had due Parliamentary scrutiny (implying, I assume, that there had been ample opportunity to question its contents and/or vires). As I said @ 13:18 yesterday, the JCSI normally scrutinizes statutory instruments chiefly for (a) proper drafting and (b) vires - I haven't yet managed to find their reports for 2013 on the Parliament website, so can't say what, if any, comments they made about this Fees Order. I also don't know what comments were made, if any, as part of the affirmative procedure when the order was laid (but anyone who really wants to know should be able to find out through Parliamentary records). My second comment of yesterday (@ 15:30) was really to say that Parliamentary time is pretty tight because of the amount of business that is usually on the agenda, but that was not to say that instruments always receive only light scrutiny; some may indeed be debated or considered in depth. However, not all Parliamentarians are lawyers and the Supreme Court is likely to have much greater opportunity than the Parliamentary timetable allows to consider and evaluate the relevant legal and constitutional principles in relation to any particular statutory provisions, the power of the executive to enact and implement them and the manner in which they are exercised by the executive.