Regulators are not soverign entities

Jonathan Ayling writes:

To be clear, these bodies have legitimate roles, and their operational independence is important. No sensible person wants ministers deciding which professional should be disciplined or registered. Political control over individual professional decisions would be dangerous.

Regulators are independent when it comes to their individual decisions. That is how it should be. Ministers get no say in whether a doctor is found incompetent or a broadcaster is found to have breached broadcasting standards.

Operational independence is not the same as saying ministers should stand back while public bodies rewrite the rules, redefine their missions, and treat oversight as an affront.

Exactly. If the BSA decides it has the unilateral authority to regulate Internet based media outlets, they should expect a response from a Minister. Likewise if the Medical Council decides that doctor competence now includes affirming a left wing political ideology, of course they will get a response.

But ministers are not visitors to their own portfolios or regulatory bodies. They are accountable to voters for what happens inside them.

Of course, every individual is free to advocate for whatever view of the world they want. But they should do so as private individuals, not under the false pretence of state regulators, charging the cost of this activism to each one of us.

Push political views in your own time. Don’t do using powers of coercion as a regulator.