Nineteenth Report of Session 2012-13 - Statutory Instruments Joint Committee Contents


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.


 
previous page contents next page


© Parliamentary copyright 2013
Prepared 19 February 2013