2 S.I.
2012/3171: Reported for unexpected use of the enabling power
General Pharmaceutical Council (Amendment of
Miscellaneous Provisions) Rules Order of Council 2012 (S.I. 2012/3171)
2.1 The Committee draws the special attention
of both Houses to this Order on the ground that it makes an unexpected
use of the enabling power in one respect.
2.2 The Order approves the General Pharmaceutical
Council (Amendment of Miscellaneous Provisions) Rules 2012 ("the
2012 Rules"), Part 4 of which amends the General Pharmaceutical
Council (Registration) Rules 2010 ("the 2010 Rules").
2.3 Rule 25 of the 2012 Rules, which is in Part
4, amends rule 10 of the 2010 Rules. Prior to the amendments rule
10 (which requires the provision of evidence of identity in certain
cases) stated that a person's passport, or a copy of a person's
passport certified by a solicitor or equivalent, would constitute
an acceptable form of evidence of the person's identity. The amendments
made to rule 10 by rule 25 of the 2012 Rules include the insertion
of a new paragraph (3A) (introduced by rule 25(6)) which provides
that a certified copy of a passport is acceptable only if it does
not include a copy of the front cover of the passport. The Committee
was unclear as to the reasons why a copy of a passport which does
include a copy of the cover is excluded and so asked the Department
of Health to explain, in relation
to new rule 10(3A), why a certified copy of a passport including
its front cover (as opposed to one without its front cover) is
not treated as acceptable supporting evidence.
2.4 In a memorandum printed at Appendix
2 the Department explains that it had become difficult for some
persons to be able to obtain a certified copy of the whole of
their passports because solicitors had declined to certify a copy
including the front page (which bears the Royal Coat of Arms)
on the ground that its reproduction is protected under the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988 by Crown copyright. The Department
acknowledges that it is not certain that copying the page of a
passport bearing the Royal Court of Arms is indeed a breach of
copyright or, even if it is, that it would lead to any proceedings
by way of enforcement. But it is understandable that solicitors
might be reluctant to become involved in reproducing and certifying
front pages of passports if there is a possibility that to do
so would constitute such a breach. The Committee is grateful for
the explanation and it finds it convincing as an explanation of
why an option of omitting the front page might be considered.
2.5 The decision to make the omission
prescriptive was aimed, according to the memorandum, at preventing
anyone who was unaware of a potential copyright issue relating
to the front page from copying and supplying it in any event.
Here the Committee finds the explanation unconvincing: the range
of possible certifiers is limited to those who can be assumed
to have sufficient legal expertise to be able to form their own
views on such risks of including the front page as might exist.
If a solicitor is content to certify a copy of the whole of
a passport, that, of course, in no way adversely affects its evidential
value, which is what the need for certification is necessarily
aimed at. Had the relevant rule provided that a copy with or without
the front page would suffice, the aim would have been fully achieved
with a choice extended in a manner likely to be more convenient
to those required to comply.
2.6 The Committee accordingly reports
rule 25(6) for making an unexpected use of the enabling power.
| 
