Twenty-Ninth Report of Session 2021–22

Twenty-Ninth

Author: Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Date Published: 25 March 2022

Download and Share

Contents

Instruments reported

At its meeting on 23 March 2022 the Committee scrutinised a number of instruments in accordance with Standing Orders. It was agreed that the special attention of both Houses should be drawn to four of those considered. The instruments and the grounds for reporting them are given below. The relevant departmental memoranda are published as appendices to this report.

1S.I. 2022/45: Reported for defective drafting

Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2022

1.1The Committee draws the special attention of both Houses to these Rules on the grounds that they are defectively drafted in two respects.

1.2These Rules, which are subject to the negative resolution procedure, amend the Criminal Procedure Rules 2020.

1.3Rule 5(a) amends rule 7.4(8) of the 2020 Rules to require a prosecutor or court officer to serve a copy of a summons or requisition issued to a defendant under 18 to the defendant’s parent or guardian and “if the court requires the parent or guardian to attend, the copy may impose that requirement or a separate summons or requisition may be issued for that purpose”. The Committee asked the Ministry of Justice to explain the reason for including alternative options of a separate summons or a copy, and to explain how a copy of a summons addressed to one person can impose a requirement on another person. In a memorandum printed at Appendix 1, the Department explains that having two options was provided for in the two previous versions of rule 7.4(8) and is long established practice. Appeal to precedent is not an explanation; but in any event neither of the two past versions of rule 7.4(8) refer to a “copy” and both refer to a “summons”. The Committee therefore remains unclear how a “copy” of a summons addressed to one person can impose a requirement on another person, and the Committee accordingly reports rule 5(a) for defective drafting.

1.4Rule 6(b) amends rule 9.2(3) of the 2020 Rules to add new rule 9.15 to the list where the court may exercise powers in the defendant’s absence. As rule 9.2(1) states that rule 9.2 applies to the exercise of powers to which rules 9.6 to 9.14 apply, the Committee asked the Department to explain why a consequential amendment was not made to rule 9.2(1). In its memorandum, the Department accepts that rule 9.2(1) should have been amended. The Committee accordingly reports rule 6(b) for defective drafting, acknowledged by the Department.

2S.I. 2022/71: Reported for failure to comply with proper legislative practice, for doubtful vires and for defective drafting

Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022

2.1The Committee draws the special attention of both Houses to these Regulations on the grounds that they fail to comply with proper legislative practice in one respect, give rise to doubt as to whether they are intra vires in two respects and are defectively drafted in two related respects.

2.2These Regulations, which are subject to the negative resolution procedure, expand the role of local authorities in parking, bus lane and moving traffic enforcement regimes.

2.3The preamble states that the Regulations are made by the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor, each in exercise of specified powers conferred by the Traffic Management Act 2004. But the instrument as published purports to be signed by a junior Minister in the Department of Transport on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport, and a junior Minister in the Ministry of Justice on behalf of “the Secretary of State”. The Committee asked the Department for Transport to explain the discrepancy between the preamble and the signature block. In a memorandum printed at Appendix 2, the Department asserts that the version of the instrument that Ministers signed did not include the rubric “Signed by the authority of the Secretary of State” above the Ministry of Justice signature. The Department proposes to re-publish the instrument in the form signed by Ministers (an approach approved by the SI Registrar). The Committee accordingly reports these Regulations for failure to comply with proper legislative practice, acknowledged by the Department.

(The Department also asserts that “regulations made by the Lord Chancellor do not customarily include Signed by authority of the Lord Chancellor, or similar wording, in the signature block”. It cites one 2022 instrument by way of example. The Committee has found several examples of instruments made in just the last two years that do include such wording in the signature block. In the Committee’s view this practice enhances accuracy and is therefore to be preferred, but in any event the Department should be consistent.)

2.4Regulation 13 allows a civil enforcement officer to attach a wheel clamp to a vehicle that has not been moved after being fixed with a penalty charge notice. Regulation 14 sets limits on the circumstances in which that power may be used, including a time limit: a vehicle must not be clamped until “the appropriate period has elapsed since the penalty charge notice was given”. Paragraph (5) defines “appropriate period” as being 15 minutes in some cases and 30 minutes in others. The enabling power relating to the time limit, section 79(6) of the 2004 Act, provides that “The regulations shall also provide that an immobilisation device must not be fixed to a vehicle in a parking place … until 15 minutes have elapsed since the giving of a notification of a penalty charge in respect of the contravention”. It appeared to the Committee that the Department was treating the 15 minute requirement in section 79(6) as if it were a minimum period and not a prescribed period, and the Committee asked the Department to justify that approach. In its memorandum, the Department accepts that it is indeed treating the 15 minute period as being a minimum and justifies this by: (a) noting that the same enabling power was used by an earlier instrument to achieve the same effect; (b) asserting that a longer time limit is consistent with the presumed intention of section 79(6)—to protect vehicle owners; and (c) suggesting that a power to make incidental provision can be used “to go beyond the precise terms” of the enabling power. These arguments are fundamentally flawed: (a) past practice is no proof of lawfulness; (b) purposive interpretations cannot oust the clear wording of the enabling Act; and (c) it is troubling that a Department thinks it proper to argue that a power to make incidental provision permits departure from the clear terms of the statute. If Parliament had wished (as it so often does) to set a minimum period and allow Departments to extend it, the Act would have provided accordingly; in this case, Parliament appears to have balanced competing interests and prescribed a fixed period. It is not for Departments to arrogate to themselves the power to change the clear terms of the enabling Act, and the Committee accordingly reports regulation 14(5) for doubt as to whether it is intra vires.

2.5Regulation 17 sets out the process that must be followed if enforcement authorities fail to decide how their expenses under section 81 of the 2004 Act should be allocated. It appeared to the Committee that these provisions were made in reliance on paragraphs (9) and (10) of that section, which confer a regulation-making power on the Secretary of State. But in the preamble, only the Lord Chancellor indicates a reliance on section 81. The Committee asked the Department to explain the discrepancy. In its memorandum, the Department acknowledges that regulation 17 was made by the Secretary of State, not the Lord Chancellor. It asserts that the failure to cite the correct enabling power is a mere oversight that does not affect the validity of the Regulations. The Committee disagrees. On the basis that a preamble has the legal effect described by the Court of Appeal in Vibixa Ltd and another v Komori UK Ltd and others [2006] EWCA Civ 536, failure to cite an enabling provision relied on goes to vires. The Committee accordingly reports regulation 2(4) for doubt as to whether it is intra vires.

2.6The Committee also asked the Department to explain why “relevant parking contravention” is defined but not used in regulation 16 and used but not defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 3. In its memorandum, the Department acknowledges that the definition should not have been included in regulation 16, and that paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 should not have referred to “relevant” parking contraventions. It undertakes to correct both errors at the next available opportunity. The Committee accordingly reports regulation 16 and paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 for defective drafting, acknowledged by the Department.

3S.I. 2022/82: Reported for defective drafting

European Qualifications (Health and Social Care Professions) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2022

3.1The Committee draws the special attention of both Houses to these Regulations on the ground that they are defectively drafted in one respect.

3.2These Regulations, which are subject to the negative resolution procedure, remove references to the Internal Market Information (IMI) system used by the EEA (and Swiss) member state regulators. Regulation 3(6) substitutes wording in the European Qualifications (Health and Social Care Professions) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 to remove the requirement to update the European Commission on open IMI alerts. However, the result of the substituted wording is that section 23G(8) of the Opticians Act 1989 states that a relevant court may “allow the appeal [of an IMI alert] and direct”. The Committee asked the Department of Health and Social Care to explain what meaning is intended to be given to the words “and direct”. In a memorandum printed at Appendix 3, the Department confirms that “and direct” should have been included in the phrase omitted under the modification to section 23G(8) of the Opticians Act 1989 and that it will correct the error at the earliest opportunity. The Committee accordingly reports regulation 3(6) for defective drafting, acknowledged by the Department.

4S.I. 2022/241: Reported for doubtful vires and for defective drafting

Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 6) Regulations 2022

4.1The Committee draws the special attention of both Houses to these Regulations on the grounds that there is doubt as to whether they are intra vires in one respect and they are defectively drafted in two respects.

4.2These Regulations, which are subject to the made affirmative procedure, make amendments to the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (“the 2019 Regulations”). Regulation 9 inserts a new Part 6A, comprising of regulations 57J to 57O and containing sanctions relating to aircraft. Regulation 57J contains prohibitions and requirements relating to the movement of Russian aircraft, including at paragraph (1) a prohibition on Russian aircraft overflying or landing in the UK. Paragraph (8) of regulation 57J confers a power on the Secretary of State to issue directions providing for exceptions to the prohibitions and requirements imposed by regulation 57J, including the prohibition in paragraph (1). The Committee was unable to identify any powers which allowed regulation 57(8) to be applied to the prohibition in paragraph (1). Section 15(2)(c) of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 confers a power on the Secretary of State to include provision for exceptions by direction, but only where that relates to requirements imposed by the regulations and not where it relates to prohibitions. In a memorandum printed at Appendix 4, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office acknowledges that the powers conferred by section 15(2)(c) do not extend to prohibitions imposed by sanctions regulations and therefore accepts that there are no vires for regulation 57J(8) in so far as it relates to the prohibition in paragraph (1) of that regulation. The Department indicates that this will be corrected by amending the 2019 Regulations at the earliest opportunity. The Committee accordingly reports regulation 9 for doubt as to whether it is intra vires in so far as it relates to the application of regulation 57J(8) of the 2019 Regulations to paragraph (1) of that regulation, acknowledged by the Department.

4.3Regulation 57J(9) enables the Secretary of State to direct the Civil Aviation Authority to suspend or revoke a permission under article 250 or 252 of the Air Navigation Order 2016 (“ANO”) in respect of a Russian aircraft. Regulation 57L(1)(b) makes consequential provision so that the duty of the Authority under article 255(4) of the ANO to consider representations made by the operator or charterer does not apply. However, 57L(1)(b) only applies in respect of a revocation of a permission. In its memorandum, the Department acknowledges that regulation 57L(1)(b) should also refer to a suspension of a permission under article 250 or 252 of the ANO and indicates that this will be corrected by amending the 2019 Regulations at the earliest opportunity. The Committee accordingly reports regulation 9 for defective drafting in so far as it relates to regulation 57L(1)(b) of the 2019 Regulations, acknowledged by the Department.

4.4Regulation 57O(1) contains definitions which apply for the purposes of Part 6A. It includes a definition of “Russian aircraft” which means (amongst other things) an aircraft owned, chartered or operated by a designated person. The Regulations do not include a definition of a designated person for these purposes. In its memorandum, the Department accepts that this is a mistake and indicates that it will be corrected by amending the 2019 Regulations at the earliest opportunity. The Committee accordingly reports regulation 9 for defective drafting, in so far as it relates to regulation 57O(1) of the 2019 Regulations, acknowledged by the Department.

Instruments not reported

At its meeting on 23 March 2022 the Committee considered the instruments set out in the Annex to this Report, none of which was required to be reported to both Houses.

Annex

Draft Instruments requiring affirmative approval

S.I. Numbers

S.I. Title

Draft

Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022

Draft

Social Security (Contributions) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2022

Instruments subject to annulment

S.I. Numbers

S.I. Title

S.I. 2022/166

Personal Injuries (NHS Charges) (Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

S.I. 2022/214

Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Amendment Regulations 2022

S.I. 2022/217

Non-Domestic Rating (Definition of Domestic Property) (England) Order 2022

S.I. 2022/2291

Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 2022

S.I. 2022/243

Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Instruments not subject to parliamentary proceedings not laid before Parliament

S.I. Numbers

S.I. Title

S.I. 2022/163

Financial Services Act 2021 (Commencement No. 4) Regulations 2022

Appendix 1: Memorandum from the Ministry of Justice

S.I. 2022/45

Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2022

1. The Committee has asked the Ministry of Justice for a memorandum on the following points:

(1) In respect of rule 5(a)

(a) explain the reason for including alternative options of a separate summons or a copy (including examples of when each might be appropriate), and

(b) explain how a copy of a summons addressed to one person can impose a requirement on another person.

(2) Explain why rule 6(b) does not make a consequential amendment to rule 9.2(1) of S.I. 2020/759.

The Ministry of Justice is grateful for the Committee’s consideration of this instrument. The response to each of the two points raised is set out below.

Point (1): rule 5(a)

2. Since 6th October, 2008, what is now rule 7.4(8) of the Criminal Procedure Rules has read, “A summons or requisition issued to a defendant under 18 may require that defendant’s parent or guardian to attend the court with the defendant, or a separate summons or requisition may be issued for that purpose.” The immediate predecessor to that rule, which itself had been in force since 1992, had read, as far as material, “a summons or warrant may be issued by a court to enforce the attendance of a parent or guardian under section 34A of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 … and a summons to the child or young person may include a summons to the parent or guardian to enforce his attendance for the said purpose.” Thus, it has for long been the case that two possibilities have been accommodated: the use of a separate summons, or the use of a combined document. As substituted by rule 5(a) of these Amendment Rules, the rule will require the delivery to a parent or guardian of a copy of any summons or requisition delivered to a young defendant, irrespective of any requirement for the parent or guardian to attend; the purpose being to inform that parent or guardian of the prosecution in every case.

3. If the court exercises its power under section 34A of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to require a parent or guardian to attend then notice of that requirement may be communicated to that person in either of the established ways: the notice may be included in the document delivered to the parent or guardian which contains a copy of the summons or requisition addressed to the defendant, or a separate notice in the form of a summons or requisition addressed to the parent or guardian may be delivered with the copy of the summons or requisition addressed to the defendant. But in each case it is the court’s requirement, when communicated to the parent or guardian by the document in which it is conveyed, that creates the obligation to attend.

4. In practice, both the long-established devices for communicating the court’s requirement are used by courts and prosecutors according to local preference. Either is effective and the substituted rule allows that practice to continue.

Point (2): rule 6(b)

5. This is an error which is deeply regretted. For rule 9.2(1) there was to have been substituted, “This rule applies to the exercise of a magistrates’ court’s powers to which this Part applies.” The Criminal Procedure Rule Committee will be asked to make that amendment when the Committee next amends the Criminal Procedure Rules 2020, S.I. 2020/759; in June, as presently anticipated.

Ministry of Justice

15 March 2022

Appendix 2: Memorandum from the Department for Transport

S.I. 2022/71

Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022

1. The Committee has asked the Department for Transport for a memorandum on four points which we have set out in turn below:

(1) Having regard to paragraph 7.4 of the Committee’s Forty-Sixth Report of Session 2019–21, in relation to S.R. 2021/16, explain why the preamble states that the instrument is made by the Lord Chancellor, but the signature block shows a junior Minister in the Ministry of Justice signing on behalf of “the Secretary of State”.

(2) Explain whether regulation 14(5), in setting a 30-minute limit in certain cases, is construing section 79(6) of the Traffic Management Act 2004 as setting a minimum and not prescribing a period, and if so, justify that construction by reference to any relevant rules of statutory interpretation.

(3) Explain why “relevant parking contravention” is defined but not used in regulation 16 and used but not defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 3.

(4) Having regard to section 81(9)(b)(i) of the Traffic Management Act 2004, explain whether the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor made regulation 17 and, if it was the former, why section 81 was not cited as one of the powers exercised by the Secretary of State in making these Regulations.

Response to point (1)

2. Having investigated this, the Department has identified that the version of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022 (the “Regulations”) signed by Ministers in the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Justice did not include the words “Signed by authority of the Secretary of State” above the signature of the Ministry of Justice Minister. It appears, therefore, that the error only appears in the registered and published version of the Regulations.

3. The relevant part of the signature block in the version of the Regulations signed by Ministers is in the following form:

Wolfson

Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice

Ministry of Justice

4. We understand from lawyers at the Ministry of Justice that regulations made by the Lord Chancellor do not customarily include Signed by authority of the Lord Chancellor, or similar wording, in the signature block. By way of a recent example, the Department would refer to the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2022.

5. Having corresponded with the SI Registrar, the Department understands that the Regulations can be re-published in the form signed by Ministers under the free issue procedure with an appropriate correction headnote. The Department will arrange for this to be done as soon as possible.

Response to point (2)

6. The Department can confirm that regulation 14(5) of the Regulations is construing section 79(6) of the Traffic Management Act 2004 (the “TMA”) as setting a minimum and not prescribing a period. In reaching this conclusion, the Department notes the following points.

7. Firstly, regulation 14(5) is a consolidation of existing provisions in regulation 13(4) and (5) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 (the “2007 Regulations”). Whilst that does not, in itself, answer the question of how section 79(6) of the TMA is to be construed, the Department would note that its construction is consistent with what has been in force to date.

8. Secondly, section 79(6) of the TMA is presumably intended to provide a measure of protection to vehicle owners. Providing a longer period than that specified by section 79(6) is consistent with that purpose.

9. Lastly, section 89(3) of the TMA allows that regulations “may contain incidental, consequential or transitional provision or savings”. The Department considers that to the extent that regulation 14(5) of the Regulations could be said to go beyond the precise terms of section 79(6) of the TMA, this constitutes incidental provision.

Response to point (3)

10. It would appear that the inclusion of a definition of “relevant parking contravention” in regulation 16 of the Regulations is an error. Whilst this is regrettable, the Department considers that regulation 16 can still be understood and that regulation 16 still operates as intended. Nonetheless, in the interests of clarity, the Department will amend the Regulations to remove the definition as soon as it has an opportunity to do so.

11. The Department notes that the term “relevant parking contravention” as used in paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 of the Regulations is not defined. The term is intended to refer to parking contraventions to which section 102 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 applies. It is accepted that it would have been more consistent with the terms of section 102 to have referred to just “parking contraventions”. The Department takes the view that the term can still be understood as referring to parking contraventions to which section 102 applies given the rest of the wording in paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 of the Regulations. Nonetheless, in the interests of clarity, the Department will amend the Regulations to remove the word “relevant” as soon as it has an opportunity to do so.

Response to point (4)

12. The Department can confirm that regulation 17 of the Regulations was made by the Secretary of State. The fact that section 81 of the TMA has not been cited as one of the powers exercised by the Secretary of State in making the Regulations is a regrettable oversight. However, the Department does not consider that this affects the validity of the Regulations.

Conclusion

13. The Department apologises to the Committee for the errors referred to above and will endeavour to ensure that similar mistakes do not happen again.

Department for Transport

15 March 2022

Appendix 3: Memorandum from the Department of Health and Social Care

S.I. 2022/82

European Qualifications (Health and Social Care Professions) (Amendment etc.)(EU Exit) Regulations 2022

1. The Committee has asked the Department of Health and Social Care for a memorandum on the following point:

Explain what meaning is intended to be given to the words “and direct” in section 23G(8) of the Opticians Act 1989 as modified in accordance with regulation 3(6).

The Department’s response is as follows.

2. The words “and direct” reflect an error in regulation 3(6) of the Instrument, which should have included those words in the phrase omitted under the modification to section 23G(8) of the Opticians Act 1989.

3. Regulation 3(6) should accordingly have substituted the following wording for paragraph 27(2) of Schedule 5 to the European Qualifications (Health and Social Care Professions) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/593):

In disposing of such an appeal, the powers of the relevant court continue to be those set out in section 23G(8) of the 1989 Act (as it had effect before the coming into force of these Regulations), but as if the words “and direct that the alert be withdrawn or amended” were omitted. [emphasis added]

4. The failure to substitute the words “and direct” therefore means that the legislation contains a non-sequitur which we acknowledge could lead to confusion. We apologise to the Committee for this error and will correct it at the earliest opportunity.

Department of Health and Social Care

15 March 2022

Appendix 4: Memorandum from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

S.I. 2022/241

Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 6) Regulations 2022

1. The Committee has asked in its letter of 16th March 2022 to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (“FCDO”) for a memorandum on the following points:

a. Explain the powers under which regulation 57J(8) is made in so far as it relates to the prohibition in paragraph (1) of that regulation.

b. Explain why regulation 57L(1)(b) refers only to the revocation of a permission under article 250 or 252 of the Air Navigation Order 2016, given that regulation 57L(1)(b) is concerned with directions for both the suspension and the revocation of such a permission.

c. Explain the meaning of “designated person” where it appears in the definition of “Russian aircraft” in regulation 57O(1), and explain where that expression is defined for the purposes of that definition.

2. The FCDO is grateful for the Committee’s consideration of this instrument

and responds as follows:

a. Regulation 57J(8) was drafted on the basis that the vires in section 15(2)(c) of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, which provide for a requirement imposed by the regulations to be subject to such exceptions as an appropriate Minister specified in the regulations may direct, was capable of allowing an exception to be made to the prohibition in regulation 57J(1). However, having reviewed further in light of the point raised by the Committee, the FCDO accepts that the vires provided by section 15(2)(c) only extend to a “requirement imposed” and not a prohibition. This will be corrected by amending the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 at the earliest opportunity.

b. The FCDO accepts that regulation 57L(1)(b) should also refer to “suspension”. This will be corrected by amending the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 at the earliest opportunity;

c. The FCDO accepts that the term “designated person” in regulation 57O(1) requires further definition. This will be corrected by amending the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 at the earliest opportunity.

Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office

18 March 2022

Appendix 5: Memorandum from the Department for Work and Pensions

S.I. 2022/229

Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 2022

1. This is a voluntary memorandum produced by the Department for Work and Pensions to inform the Committee of an error in the Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Amendment Regulations 2022 (S.I. 2022/214),which were made on 3rd March 2022 and were laid before Parliament on 7th March 2022. The error has been corrected by the Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Amendment (No.2) Regulations 2022 (S.I. 2022/229), which were made on 7th March 2022 and were laid before Parliament on 7th March 2022. We would be grateful if this memorandum could be brought to the attention of the Committee for consideration with both those Regulations.

2. The intention is for S.I. 2022/214 to come into force on 28th March 2022. That intention was correctly reflected in the ‘coming into force’ italic wording at the top of S.I. 2022/214. Unfortunately, regulation 1(1) did not reflect the intention. It contained no commencement date: “and come into force on […]”. The date should have been inserted before the Regulations were made.

3. S.I. 2022/229 has been made to correct this error. It substitutes “28th March 2022” into regulation 1(1) of S.I. 2022/214.

4. The Department wanted to correct the error as quickly as possible to ensure the commencement date for S.I. 2022/214 was clear. S.I. 2022/229 was therefore brought into force on the same date it was made and laid before Parliament. As a result, it breaches the 21 day rule. The Department apologises for this.

5. S.I. 2022/229 will be issued free of charge to persons who bought S.I. 2022/214.

6. The Department regrets and apologises for the error in S.I. 2022/214. There are detailed procedures in place to check Departmental S.I.s and ensure that the correct dates are inserted for making, laying and coming into force. The procedures clearly failed in this case. A review of the procedures will be undertaken to determine what went wrong and what can be done in the future to prevent such an error occurring again.

Department for Work and Pensions

8 March 2022

Formal Minutes

Wednesday 23 March 2022

Virtual meeting

Members present

Dr James Davies

Baroness D’Souza

Baroness Gale

Lord Haskel

John Lamont

Baroness Newlove

Lord Smith of Hindhead

Richard Thomson

Liz Twist

In the absence of the Chair, Lord Haskel was called to the chair.

Report consideration

Draft Report, proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1.1 to 4.4 read and agreed to.

Annex agreed to.

Papers were appended to the Report as Appendices 1 to 5.

Resolved, That the Report be the Twenty-Ninth Report of the Committee to both
Houses.

Ordered, That John Lamont make the Report to the House of Commons and that the Report be made to the House of Lords.

Adjournment

Adjourned till Wednesday 30 March at 3.40 p.m.


Footnotes

1 The Department for Work and Pensions submitted a voluntary memorandum in relation to this instrument, which is printed at Appendix 5