Not A Smart Cookie

From midnight tonight, the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) (Amendment) Regulations 2011 comes into force. This amends the 2003 Regulation and enhances the powers of the Information Commissioner particularly regarding internet cookies.

The amendments require companies and website owners to gain explicit permission before setting a cookie on an internet user’s computer. Failure to abide by this Directive could lead to a fine of up to £500,000 for a serious breach.

This amendment has been controversial for a number of reasons. Firstly there's the catch-22 situation. When visiting a site a message will appear; "do you consent to cookies from this site". If you click 'no' the website cannot leave a cookie to remember your response so when clicking on a second page on the site, another pop-up window will appear requesting your consent again - and this will happen continually until you consent. Shopping online with EU websites, as a consequence, will become an unpleasant and intrusive experience, which leads onto the second point. These rules will not apply to non-EU sites, making them more of an attractive experience and putting EU sites at a commercial disadvantage, not least also because of the additional over-heads of complying with the rules.

My Europhile Tory MP; Ed Vaizey (Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries) has previously expressed his concerns, regarding this directive:

"...a good example of a well-meaning regulation that will be very difficult to make work in practice."

Concerns that also included traditional Tory friendly words like:

"I am not a big fan of regulation."

"...it is so important for us to adopt a flexible approach"

"...a one size fits all solution will not cover everything"

But as Mr Vaizey's open letter this week makes clear, he has every intention of complying:

DCMS looks forward to continuing its close collaboration with the ICO and other stakeholders on the development of appropriate technical solutions to this challenging and difficult provision. We remain firmly convinced that the UK implementation is correct that it is good for business, good for consumers and addresses in a proportionate and pragmatic way the concerns of citizens with regard their personal data online.

And:

"...there will be no immediate changes to how UK websites operate as a result of new EU rules".

There will be no immediate changes, which only means that we will comply eventually, and we must because the Information Commissioner has told us so:

British businesses have one year to make sure their websites comply with updated rules governing the use of cookies, the UK's data protection authority has warned.

...the cookie consent laws will not be enforced immediately, information commissioner Christopher Graham said on Wednesday.

"We're giving businesses and organisations up to one year to get their house in order," Graham said in a statement. "This does not let everyone off the hook. Those who choose to do nothing will have their lack of action taken into account when we begin formal enforcement of the rules."

We therefore only have a year's respite before the EU Directive is implemented, and in many cases it will be implemented earlier.

So an unelected bureaucracy issues laws that are then implement by an unelected quango in the UK regardless of the wishes or concerns of the elected representative, to the detriment of British business. Therein lies the state of British democracy.

Boom!

As Fraser Nelson reveals in the Spectator one of the first of Labour's landmines, laid before the election, is primed to go off:

"Has Mark Hoban just become the first victim of the New Labour landmines? He was asked on the Today Programme whether the Treasury had conducted a formal study assessing the impact of the cuts on ethnic minorities. Hoban was speechless - as well you might be. But the assessment, he was told, is required under Harriet Harman's Equalities Act. Has it been carried out? He avoided the question and was asked it again. And so it continued, a la Paxman v Howard.

When Labour retreated, it sewed several landmines in the political territory it was about to cede. One of them was Harman's Equalities Act, which - as Pete blogged a while ago - mandates government "to consider how decisions might help to reduce inequalities associated with socio-economic disadvantage".

Of course if Cameron had any kind of backbone he would have abolished most of these acts the moment he came to office, but didn't - obviously too worried that repealing an 'Equality Act would've undermine the new 'cuddly' Tory image.

Fraser makes another salient point in this rather revealing passage:

In this way, Labour transferred power from parliament (where it was about to lose power) to the courts (where the lefty judiciary reign supreme). Their calculation was that if they did this quietly enough, and in technicalities, the Cameroons would not wise up to it because of their aversion to detail. Cameron should have repealed the Equalities Act instantly.

Aversion to detail? Great! That is going to be so helpful when they start dealing with the complexities of the EU.

The Mail reports today that a challenge to the budget may be about to start:

The Coalition is facing legal action against its Budget from an equality watchdog after analysts found it hammered the poor.

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission said it was considering whether to take the Treasury to court.

The quango said it feared Chancellor George Osborne had not investigated the impact of his Budget on vulnerable groups – such as women, the elderly, the disabled and ethnic minorities – as legally required.

The Treasury is also facing legal action from women’s rights group the Fawcett Society, which says ministers took no account of the Budget's effect on women.

Unelected Quangos are now gearing up to challenge the sovereignty of Parliament in the courts. Tom Harris is still bleating (in some ways understandably) about the inefficiencies of the IPSA, but in truth he and all the others might as well stick a great big sign outside the House of Commons saying: "Closed, until further notice".

Oh Please...

...just...er... go away:

A government quango has urged football fans to choose sparkling water and grapes rather than beer and crisps while watching the World Cup.

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) which has an annual budget of £135m, has issued four pages of advice on how to make "healthier choices ... while you're feasting on the footie".

It suggests fans "walk to the pub instead of taking the bus" or "use half-time for a brisk walk and some fresh air".

The rest of the Telegraph article or original document is just too depressing to read. We need cuts in this country, the FSA's a good place to start. Bye!