1. The Committee has considered
the instruments set out in the Annex to this Report and has determined
that the special attention of both Houses does not require to
be drawn to any of them.
2. A memorandum by the Home
Office in connection with the Animals (Scientific Procedures)
Act 1986 (Fees) Order 2000 (S.I. 2000/480) is printed in
2000 (S.I. 2000/516)
3. The Committee draws the special
attention of both Houses to these Regulations on the ground that
they are defectively drafted.
4. These Regulations make provision
for the assessment of the financial resources of a person in order
to determine eligibility to receive services funded by the Legal
Services Commission and to assess any contribution to be made.
Regulation 13 requires the client to inform the assessing authority
of any change in his financial circumstances (or those of any
other person concerned) since any assessment of his resources,
and which might affect the terms on which the client was assessed
as eligible to receive funded services. The Committee asked the
Lord Chancellor's Department whether this provision is intended
to impose a duty on the client to inform the authority of any
change in the financial circumstances of any other person concerned
(for example, his partner or parent), even if he is unaware of
the change. In the memorandum printed in Appendix 2 the Department
state that the duty is only intended to arise in cases where the
client is, or should reasonably be, aware of the change in the
other person's circumstances, and they undertake to clarify this
point when amending regulations are made. The Committee reports
regulation 13 for defective drafting, acknowledged by the Department.
2000 (S.I. 2000/478)
5. The Committee reports these
Regulations to both Houses on the ground that there has been an
unjustifiable breach of the 21-day rule.
6. The Regulations were laid
before Parliament on 28 February, and came into force on 29 February.
When the instrument was laid, the Department for Education and
Employment submitted a memorandum to the Committee explaining
that it had been necessary to breach the 21-day rule (i.e. that
instruments should not come into force less than 21 days after
they are laid before Parliament) because the Regulations proved
complex to draft (the memorandum is printed in Appendix 3). The
Committee asked for further explanation of this breach, particularly
given that the Regulations are modelled on the 1999 Regulations
(S.I. 1999/101). In the second memorandum printed in Appendix
3, the Department explain that the 1999 Regulations had to be
completely rechecked, and that the amendments that had to be made
to them were complex. However, the Committee does not consider
that the factors outlined in the memorandum constitute an acceptable
justification for this substantial breach of the 21-day rule,
and reports accordingly.
1 The Orders of Reference of the Committee are set
out in the First Report, Session 1999-2000 (HL Paper 4; HC 47-i). Back