“He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much, and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.” Luke 16:10, KJB
This famous verse from the Gospel of St. Luke is resonant in the scandal surrounding Rachel Reeves. Not, however, in the way that could be expected. Her administrative error, although it is part of a pattern, considering the enhancements to her CV, is not what is most fundamentally illustrated.
The little thing that reveals much is the regulation itself. It is a sign of how far wrong the government of this country has been going for years. It is part of a long-running trend that takes the basic common law principle that anything which is not specifically prohibited is allowed, and turns it on its head. This is not by technically changing the principle, but by regulating or licensing so much that it is transmogrified into the civil code principle that nothing is permitted unless by exception.
The law that gave councils the power to require selective licensing came into force in 2004. Until then, consenting parties were free to let or rent a property to a single owner without needing official approval. In a market that had plenty of choice, the assured shortholds reforms led to a burgeoning of the private rental sector; there was no need for any bureaucratic involvement, but the left loves regulating. Sadly, this law was not repealed during the Tory years.
It is, however, merely an example of unnecessary state intrusion. David Lammy fell foul of the Environment Agency when he fished in his own pond. As he regularly accuses people of being Nazis and is responsible for the Chagos fiasco, I have no burning desire to defend him. But how absurd that it is necessary to have a licence to fish in your own pond on your own land.
Similarly, I interviewed a magician for GB News who was being pursued by a Derbyshire council for having a rabbit, which he allowed children to pet during his performances. He was not even taking the rabbit from a hat or using it for his tricks, it was merely there to amuse the children. Yet he was ordered to pay hundreds of pounds for a licence.
When I looked into this, I hoped that I could blame the European Union for a crazy rule that had hung over us since we left, but no, it is a law that has its origins in 1925. The obsession with regulation is not new, nor are the powers to enforce them, although the principle of innocent until proved guilty has gone by the board, at least to some extent.
This is shown by the mad councils who issue fixed penalty notices for anything they can get away with as a scam money-making scheme. The yellow boxes that do nothing to ease traffic, but are introduced simply to fleece motorists; the recent examples of people fined for pouring coffee down a drain or failing to carry a bag in case a dog did a mess.
These are rapacious, essentially fraudulent controls trying to make a fast buck for badly run and economically and fiscally incontinent councils. When I was a minister, I opposed every new power for councils to fine people that came in my direction, as I knew that they would abuse the powers and that they cannot be trusted.
In a previous age, people who were accused of an offence had to be brought before a magistrate for their guilt or innocence to be determined. Now alleged offences are enforced by busybodies who threaten harsh penalties for anyone who wishes to go to court.
The single justice procedure is similarly abusive with many failures that see innocent people fined because they are not even notified of the process, and a degree of secrecy that undermines justice. The argument for all this is, of course, ‘efficiency’. Fixed penalty notices mean court time is not ‘wasted’ but, as millions of motorists now know to their cost, ‘ efficiency’ and justice do not necessarily make happy bedfellows.
The basic principle ought to be that if it is not serious enough to take before a magistrate, it is not serious enough to enforce. In our lives we must accept the little inconveniences that are caused to us, as others ought to accept those we cause. Not every minor, selfish act needs to be punished by a fine, and the courts ought to be reserved for more serious activities.
This is reinforced by the level of regulation we now suffer from. It is increasingly difficult for a law-abiding person not full foul of some minor regulation. This is a huge shift of power from the individual to the state, as it then has the arbitrary power of enforcement. It is not being enforced on Rachel Reeves, but could be enforced on you. Thus, you ought not to criticise the government or council, because you could be targeted by them.
Obviously, Digital ID would make this worse as it would enhance opportunities for aggressive enforcement. All this shows a fundamental weakness in the British state, the corrosion that makes all of us dependent on the goodwill of the bureaucracy rather than upon our own efforts. It must change and needs massive deregulation.
As a first step, the full, red-blooded version of the Retained EU Law Act ought to be reintroduced. Any laws that came from the EU must be repealed and only those that are essential kept and brought in properly to British law. If the risk is an important regulation could be abolished by mistake, that risk ought to be taken and, if necessary, the rule could be brought back later.
Next, all regulations that depend on secondary legislation, that is to say, are not a specific part of an Act of Parliament, should be subject to a five-year sunset clause, so that only those that are needed would be kept. It would need to be shown that the regulation was essential, otherwise it would go. The Regulatory Reform Committee was meant to look at this, but it was not strong or bold enough and achieved little. The threat of repeal would make departments consider the need for each regulation.
Third, the power to issue fixed penalty notices ought to be abolished in its entirety and all crimes, motoring or otherwise, ought to go via a court. The only exception could be parking tickets, but enforcement ought to go back to the police rather than council officials.
Any money collected from fines ought to go to the consolidated fund and none to the local authorities or those who issue the fine. Allowing them to keep the money creates an obvious and scandalous conflict of interest. Councils currently set rules to enable their own enforcement team to raise cash.
Any citizen ought to have the right to petition Parliament against any regulation, which would then be considered by a Select Committee that would have the power to abolish the regulation unless it was in primary legislation, in which case it could recommend repeal.
Essentially, the Augean stable of regulation needs to be cleansed, and to do so a river with the strongest current needs to be run through the whole system.
Obviously this government will not do it, but the fact that they, in their pious observance, worshipping at the altar of the mighty state, are still caught out, shows how extreme the problem is and how urgent the solution.
You can now earn rewards by referring friends. For instance, if you can encourage three friends to subscribe, you will receive a month’s paid subscription. For more details please see the Leaderboard page.
Your comments would be most welcome. Please click the button to join the conversation. Thank you.
