2022 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 4(2) the earlier statute. As an assumption or presumption, this is not a strict rule of law which predetermines the vires of the later statute. If, however, the Court concluded that the later statute, expressly or by necessary implication, had empowered the Executive to make subordinate legislation that had the effect of removing rights conferred by the earlier statute, there was no rule of law precluding such an interpretation. It followed that, in the instant case, the task of the Court was to ascertain the scope of the enabling powers in accordance with the presumption that statute had not empowered the Executive to make subordinate legislation, which removed rights conferred by BNA 1981. However, the right to be registered as a British citizen under BNA 1981 was a statutory right and Parliament, by empowering the SSHD through creation of the statutory power to provide for fees to be charged for applications to be registered as a British citizen, had authorised the fees charged to children alongside the absence of provision for waiver or reduction, so that relevant standards were not ultra vires the rulemaking power. CONCLUSION The overall result of the decision is that the SSHD’s fees policy was adjudged unlawful but only on the BCIA 2009 s 55 point, that the SSHD had failed to have regard to the best interests of children when setting the relevant fee. Looking at the development of the litigation, including the R (Williams) and R (Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens & Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘R (PRCBC)’) cases as a whole, changes the impression of the overall litigation positively, as against what the Supreme Court decision might suggest when read in isolation. First, looking at the litigation overall keeps in sight the fact that, in the High Court, the claimants in R (PRCBC) won the BCIA 2009 s 55 point. That success was confirmed by the Court of Appeal when it rejected the appeal by SSHD. The ultimate effect of those two decisions as regards the fee provision has been significant. In light of those decisions, the SSHD reviewed fees chargeable for applications made by children seeking to register as British citizens. She introduced a discretionary affordability-based fee waiver as well as a fee exception for children who are looked after by a local authority. Moreover, she created a related exception from the fees payable for the arrangement of a citizenship ceremony or administration of a citizenship oath and pledge. These changes were reflected in new regulations with Explanatory Memorandum,22 a ministerial statement,23 an impact assessment24 and published guidance for Home Office staff.25 The published guidance stated that the need to safeguard and promote the 22 23 24 25 See n 3. Kevin Foster, ‘Changes in Respect of Child Citizenship Registration Fees’ (Written Statement No UIN HCWS65, UK House of Commons, 26 May 2022) <https://questionsstatements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2022-05-26/hcws65>, archived at <https://perma.cc/6LAF-NCBM>; Baroness Williams of Trafford, ‘Changes in Respect of Child Citizenship Registration Fees’ (Written Statement No UIN HLWS61, UK House of Lords, 26 May 2022) <https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/writtenstatements/detail/2022-05-26/hlws61>, archived at <https://perma.cc/7N54-28GB>. ‘Child Citizenship Affordability Fee Waiver Impact Assessment 2022’ (Impact Assessment No HO415, UK Home Office, 2022). UK Home Office, Affordability Fee Waiver: Citizenship Registration for Individuals under the Age of 18 (Version 1.0) (Guidance for Home Office Staff, 26 May 2022) <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_d ata/file/1078033/Affordability_fee_waiver_Citizenship_registration_for_individuals_under_ the_age_of_18.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/X9ZT-32CZ> (‘Home Office Guidance’). 306