Instruments Reported
The Committee has considered the following instruments,
and has determined that the special attention of the House should
be drawn to them on the grounds specified.
A. SI 2005/1917 Housing (Right of First Refusal)
(England) Regulations 2005
Summary: These Regulations are the first use of
the power (provided under the Housing Act 2004) to require the
imposition of a right of first refusal (RFR) covenant into the
conveyance of a Right to Buy property. Responses to ODPM's consultation
process may have come disproportionately from the providers, rather
than the users, of social housing.
These Regulations are drawn to the special attention
of the House on the ground that they give rise to issues of public
policy likely to be of interest to the House.
4. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM)
have laid these Regulations under sections 36A, 156A and 171C
of the Housing Act 1985, paragraph 2A of Schedule 11 to the Housing
Act 1988, and sections 12A and 17(2) to (5) of the Housing Act
1996. ODPM have provided an accompanying Explanatory Memorandum
(EM).
5. The EM explains that the Regulations prescribe
the conditions for the right of first refusal (RFR) covenant which
must be inserted into the conveyances or grants of leases of properties
bought under the Right to Buy, Right to Acquire and Preserved
Right to Buy schemes, and also for properties bought at a discount
under the powers of voluntary disposal from local authorities,
registered social landlords (RSLs - also known as housing associations)
and housing action trusts. The owners of properties bound by the
covenant must first offer the property for purchase by its former
landlord, its successor in title or a person nominated by it.
6. The requirement to insert such a covenant
was introduced by the changes to the Right to Buy scheme made
by the Housing Act 2004 ("the 2004 Act"). Issues relating
to the RFR were considered by the House during the passage of
the Bill, and these included the suggestion, which was resisted
by the Government, that the imposition of the RFR covenant be
discretionary rather than mandatory, in order to minimise the
potential burden (e.g. the need to employ additional staff) on
social housing providers.[2]
7. The EM states that ODPM carried out a relevant
consultation process in March 2004,[3]
and that the Regulations reflect the views of stakeholders who
responded to that consultation.
8. Fuller information about the responses to
the consultation process is provided by a summary which ODPM placed
on their website in July 2005.[4]
Ninety-two responses were received. Of these, 55 were from local
authorities, 21 from RSLs, nine from tenants and tenant organisations,
and the remaining seven from landlords' organisations and the
private sector.
9. The summary states that 81 responses expressed
an opinion on the principle of the RFR: 71 welcomed or supported
it, while 10 were against the proposal or felt that it was not
an appropriate mechanism for retaining affordable housing. ODPM
have advised the Committee that, of the 71 respondents supporting
the RFR, 46 were local authorities, 19 were RSLs, and there were
three each from tenants' and landlords' organisations; and that,
of the 10 respondents who did not support the RFR, six were local
authorities, two Registered Social Landlords, and two tenants'
organisations.
10. The Committee recognises that ODPM have proceeded
with their RFR proposals in response to calls from social housing
providers, and that the support for the policy from these groups
has been demonstrated both by the predominance of local authorities
and RSLs among the respondents to the March 2004 consultation
paper, and by the views expressed by them.
11. We also acknowledge that the views of other
stakeholders in this area, notably tenants who might wish to buy
their properties in the future, cannot be so readily obtained
since they are not consistently organised in representative bodies.
We note that, to the extent that ODPM have received views from
such bodies, they appear to be divided between support for and
opposition to the proposals.
12. However, we are concerned that responses
to ODPM's consultation process may have come disproportionately
from the providers, rather than the users, of social housing.
We consider that the House will wish to be aware that these Regulations
are the first use of the power (provided by means of the 2004
Act) to require the imposition of a right of first refusal (RFR)
covenant into the conveyance of a Right to Buy property.
B. SI 2005/1992 Railways (Accident Investigation
and Reporting) Regulations 2005
Summary: These Regulations set out in more detail
the procedures to be used by the independent Rail Accident Investigation
Branch of the Department for Transport that was set up in response
to Lord Cullen's inquiry into the Ladbroke Grove rail accident.
These Regulations are drawn to the special attention
of the House on the ground that they give rise to issues of public
policy likely to be of interest to the House and are legally important.
13. The Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB)
of the Department for Transport was established under Part I of
the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 ('the 2003 Act'). These
Regulations are made under Part I of the 2003 Act and set out
detailed provision about RAIB's powers and duties, the scope of
its works and its dealings with people and organisations that
are involved in railway accidents and incidents. An Explanatory
Memorandum, a Regulatory Impact Assessment and a Transposition
Note are provided.
14. The establishment of an independent body
to investigate rail accidents was recommended by Lord Cullen as
a consequence of the Ladbroke Grove rail accident. It is now also
required by Articles 19 to 25 of the Railway Safety Directive
(2004/49/EC) which requires each Member State to establish an
independent body to investigate the causes of railway accidents
and incidents. A slightly longer timescale is allowed in respect
of the Channel Tunnel to allow for the relevant international
agreements to be drawn up.
15. The general aims of RAIB, as set out in sections
4 and 7 of the 2003 Act, are to investigate railway accidents
and incidents to determine what caused them, and, wherever relevant,
to improve the safety of railways and to prevent railway accidents
and railway incidents.
16. The Explanatory Memorandum states that between
2002 and 2004 a total of 2110 people, excluding trespassers, were
injured, and a total of 88 people, excluding trespassers and suicides,
died, in railway accidents involving moving rolling stock. It
is anticipated that in any 12-month period RAIB will receive immediate
notification of the occurrence of about 60 of the more significant
accidents and incidents, and expects to launch an investigation
immediately into a high proportion of these. RAIB also expects
it will be notified of the occurrence of up to 300 other incidents
and in the order of 1000 precursor events, in respect of which
the Branch will determine, given its resources, whether it should
conduct an investigation in the pursuit of its statutory aims.
C. SI 2005/1998 Insurers (Reorganisation and
Winding Up) (Lloyd's) Regulations 2005
Summary: These Regulations implement the EC Insurance
Reorganisation and Winding-up Directive in respect of the Lloyd's
of London insurance market. We consider it appropriate to bring
the Regulations to the special attention of the House, in view
of the controversy that still appears to surround them, as evidenced
in material provided to us on behalf of ex-Lloyd's Names and by
HM Treasury.
These Regulations are drawn to the special attention
of the House on the ground that they give rise to issues of public
policy likely to be of interest to the House.
17. HM Treasury (HMT) have laid these Regulations
under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. HMT
have provided an accompanying Explanatory Memorandum (EM) and
Transposition Note.
18. The Explanatory Note (EN) states that the
Regulations implement the Insurance Reorganisation and Winding-up
Directive 2001/17/EC ("the Directive") in respect of
the Lloyd's of London insurance market. The EN explains that the
Directive was originally implemented for all insurers in the UK
apart from Lloyd's by SI 2003/1102 Insurers (Reorganisation and
Winding Up) Regulations 2003; and that SI 2003/1102 was replaced
by SI 2004/353 Insurers (Reorganisation and Winding Up) Regulations
2004 which gave effect, in relation to insurers, to the new administration
provisions in the Enterprise Act 2002. The EN states that SI 2005/1998
makes adaptations of SI 2004/353 in order to implement the Directive's
obligations with regard to Lloyd's.
19. The EM summarises the purpose of the Directive
as being to establish rules on the adoption of reorganisation
measures and winding-up procedures for insurance undertakings
across the EU. It states that the Directive requires coordination
rules for both reorganisation measures and winding-up proceedings,
as well as rules governing the priority which different types
of creditor have in respect of the assets of an undertaking in
the event of a winding-up. In particular, the Directive establishes
that direct insurance claims should generally have precedence
over other claims.
20. Against this background, the EM states that
SI 2005/1998 identifies the circumstances in which the powers
and functions within them become exercisable, by establishing
a "trigger" for the Regulations to bite, in the event
of the failure of the Lloyd's insurance market as a whole to meet
the solvency requirement set by the Financial Services Authority
(FSA). At this point, either the FSA or the Society of Lloyd's,
or both, can apply to the Court for a Lloyd's Market Reorganisation
Order (LMRO). An LMRO provides for the appointment of a reorganisation
controller whose role is to preserve or restore the financial
situation of the market, and to assist in achieving an outcome
that is in the interests of creditors.
21. The EM adds that the reorganisation controller
must ascertain the extent of the difficulties and devise a market
reorganisation plan in liaison with the FSA. Priority will be
given to insurance debts over all unsecured liabilities; this
attaches to the entire estate of insolvent members and former
members, in line with the Directive.
22. The EM states that HMT undertook a thirteen-week
consultation exercise[5]
and received nine broadly supportive responses to the proposals.
In the light of the consultation responses, four amendments were
made to the Regulations: two in relation to the role of the reorganisation
controller, one in relation to the time allowed for drawing up
a reorganisation plan, and the final one to take account of differing
insolvency provisions in Scotland.
23. The Committee has noted the information which
HMT have provided about the development of the policy underlying
these Regulations and the relevant consultation process. However,
we have also been made aware of concerns expressed by a number
of individuals who have in the past been Lloyd's Names.
24. We have in particular received a paper, submitted
by Sir William Jaffray on behalf of over 5,000 ex-Lloyd's Names.
Among the points made in it is that SI 2005/1998 "exacerbates
the serious injustices already suffered by Ex-Lloyd's Names as
a result of the denial of any legal remedy"; that "whilst
the Directive leaves it up to Member States how to deal with ongoing
proceedings, if reorganisation measures or unwinding proceedings
are initiated, the UK has done so in a way that is manifestly
unfair"; and that "it was unjust to publish the consultation
document relating to this legislation only on H.M. Treasury's
website, a technology inaccessible to most such former Names".
The paper is reproduced at Appendix 2 to this Report.
25. The paper was also made available to HMT,
who have in turn provided us with a further note which responds
to concerns expressed by ex-Lloyd's Names, and which includes
a question and answer guide about the Regulations. The note is
reproduced at Appendix 2 to this Report.
26. We consider it appropriate to bring these
Regulations to the special attention of the House, in view of
the controversy that still appears to surround them, as evidenced
in the material provided to us on behalf of ex-Lloyd's Names and
by HM Treasury.
D. SI 2005/2015 Veterinary Surgery (Testing
for Tuberculosis in Bovines) Order 2005
Summary: This Order allows non-veterinarians to
carry out TB tests on cattle. DEFRA's intention is to implement
a pilot programme. We question whether the pilot programme, which
will deploy only non-veterinarians drawn from the State Veterinary
Service, will offer an adequate basis for assessing the wider
use of "lay testers".
This Order is drawn to the special attention of
the House on the ground that it gives rise to issues of public
policy likely to be of interest to the House.
27. The Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs (DEFRA) have laid this Order under section 19(4)(e)
of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 ("the 1966 Act").
DEFRA have provided an accompanying Explanatory Memorandum (EM)
and Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA).
28. The Explanatory Note to the Order states
that it specifies tuberculin testing of bovine animals ("TB
tests") as a test to which the prohibition of the practice
of veterinary surgery by persons other than veterinary surgeons
does not apply (a prohibition specified in section 19(1) of the
1966 Act).
29. The EM provides further information at paragraph
2.1. It states that, during a proposed pilot programme, the activity
of non-veterinarians in carrying out TB tests will be restricted
to State Veterinary Service (SVS) Animal Health Officers, and
technical staff from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
(Northern Ireland), acting under the direct supervision of Veterinary
Officers. At paragraph 7.4, the EM states that the pilot programme
will be carried out in England and Wales in order to identify
all the issues and find appropriate solutions, before considering
whether the procedure could be rolled out to other non-veterinarians;
and that the pilot programme will last approximately 12 months
and involve around 11,000 tests.
30. As background, DEFRA's EM explains (at paragraph
7.1) that there is currently a backlog of 1,750 outstanding TB
tests, and comments that "this undermines the effectiveness
of our TB controls and places unnecessary burdens on farmers."
31. The EM acknowledges that the proposed use
of non-veterinarians in this area is a sensitive issue for the
veterinary profession, and that the profession has raised a number
of valid concerns "on the principle of introducing lay TB
testing and on the legal and practical implications of the Department's
approach". Fuller information about the consultation process
which preceded the laying of the Regulations is given in the RIA,
in section 6.
32. In the light of the concerns expressed by
consultees, DEFRA developed the option of the current pilot programme,
to be completed before any decision is taken on the wider use
of non-veterinarians in carrying out TB tests. The RIA makes it
clear that representatives of the profession will be encouraged
to participate in the impact assessment of the pilot programme.
33. The Committee recognises the importance of
carrying out timely TB tests on cattle. We understand that DEFRA
are concerned to ensure that there is adequate capacity in this
country to respond to what is expected to be an increasing demand
for such tests, and that the Department have explored options
for increasing such capacity in their consultation processes since
2003.
34. We note that in 2003 DEFRA's initial proposals
met with extensive disagreement on the part of the profession
(46 out of 88 responses). We recognise that DEFRA have responded
by deciding to conduct a pilot programme before proceeding to
deploy "lay testers" more widely. However, we are not
clear that the pilot programme as planned will necessarily produce
the evidence needed to meet some of the concerns expressed. The
RIA refers to the possible future employment of lay testers by
veterinary practices as providing an opportunity to target veterinary
expertise, but it also concedes that the use of experienced SVS
technical staff in the pilot programme "will not entirely
replicate the use of lay testers in LVI [Local Veterinary Inspector]
practice". We have received a note from the Royal College
of Veterinary Surgeons which voices doubts in this regard, and
which is reproduced at Appendix 3 to this Report.
35. We question whether the pilot programme now
proposed by DEFRA will offer an adequate basis for assessing the
appropriateness of more extensive use of non-veterinarians in
conducting TB tests.
E. SI 2005/2042 Civil Contingencies Act
2004 (Contingency Planning) Regulations 2005
Summary: These Regulations set out the duties
of local authorities, emergency services and NHS bodies in the
event of a civil emergency such as flooding or terrorist arrack.
They also set out the requirements for cooperation and the exchange
of information between agencies. Given the flooding in New Orleans,
Louisiana, these arrangements may be of particular interest to
the House.
These Regulations are drawn to the special attention
of the House on the ground that they give rise to issues of public
policy likely to be of interest to the House
36. These Regulations are laid under Part 1 of
the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 ("the Act") which established
the statutory framework for local civil protection arrangements
in the United Kingdom. They set out the duties on responders in
more detail.
37. The Act divides local responders into two
categories, imposing a different set of duties on each. Category
1 responders are those organisations at the core of emergency
response (e.g. emergency services, local authorities, NHS bodies).
Category 1 responders are subject to the full set of civil protection
duties. They will be required to:
- Assess the risk of emergencies occurring and
use this to inform emergency planning and business continuity
planning;
- Put in place emergency plans;
- Put in place business continuity plans;
- Put in place arrangements to make information
available to the public about civil protection matters and maintain
arrangements to warn, inform and advise the public in the event
of an emergency;
- Share information with other local responders
to enhance co-ordination;
- Co-operate with other local responders to enhance
co-ordination and efficiency; and
- Provide advice and assistance to businesses and
voluntary organisations about business continuity management (local
authorities only).
38. Category 2 organisations (e.g. utility companies,
transport companies, Health and Safety Executive) are "co-operating
bodies" which are less likely to be involved in the heart
of planning work but will be heavily involved in incidents that
affect their sector. Category 2 responders have a less demanding
set of duties - co-operating and sharing relevant information
with other Category 1 and 2 responders.
39. The Regulations establish the scope of the
duties and the manner in which they are to be performed. In particular,
the Regulations require Category 1 and 2 responders to come together
to form Local Resilience Forums (LRFs), which are based on police
force areas outside London.
40. A short guide to the Act has been produced
by the Cabinet Office and copies have been placed in the libraries
of the House. Copies of the draft statutory guidance Emergency
Preparedness, which explains what the legislation requires
and offers good practice advice on how the duties may be performed,
have also been placed in the libraries of the House.
41. The Committee also noted that the Cabinet
Office published an indicative draft set of draft Regulations
alongside the Civil Contingencies Bill upon its introduction to
Parliament in January 2004 and that there was extensive consultation
on both the Regulations and the supporting guidance. We regard
this as an example of good practice and commend the Department.
F. SI 2005/2087 Town and Country Planning
(General Development Procedure) (Amendment) (England) Order 2005
SI 2005/2115 Town and Country Planning (Major
Infrastructure Project Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2005
Summary: These two instruments take forward important
aspects of the Government's proposals for changing the process
of handling major infrastructure projects. Consultation carried
out in the last two years has shown a good deal of support for
the underlying principles, but it has also highlighted a wish
for clarification of the interaction between existing procedures
and new mechanisms in this area of development control.
These instruments are drawn to the special attention
of the House on the ground that they give rise to issues of public
policy likely to be of interest to the House.
42. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM)
have laid this Order under sections 59, 71, 76A(5), (6) and (10),
77(4), 78(3), 78A(6) and 79(4) of, and paragraph 7 of Schedule
1 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and section 54 of
the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 ("the 2004
Act"). They have also provided an accompanying Explanatory
Memorandum (EM) and Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA).
43. The Department for Constitutional Affairs
(DCA) have laid these Rules under section 9 of the Tribunals and
Inquiries Act 1992. DCA and ODPM have jointly provided an accompanying
EM and RIA. There is a policy connection between the Order and
the Rules.
44. The Order amends SI 1995/419 Town and Country
Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 for the purpose
of implementing certain provisions of the 2004 Act. These include
the preparation of an economic impact report (EIR) relating to
a development of national or regional importance which is "called
in" for decision by the Secretary of State.
45. The Rules prescribe the procedure to be followed
in connection with local inquiries, relating to applications for
planning permission or for the approval of a local planning authority
required under a development order, held by the Secretary of State
in England, where he thinks that the development to which the
application relates is of national or regional importance. They
reproduce, with amendments, SI 2002/1223 Town and Country Planning
(Major Infrastructure Projects Inquiries Procedure) (England)
Rules 2002; a principal change made in relation to major infrastructure
project ("MIPs") inquiries is to enable inquiries to
be held in concurrent sessions by a number of inspectors.
46. In setting out the background to these instruments,
the EM states that the Government are seeking changes to the process
for handling MIPs because of concern that the process for making
planning decisions about these projects "takes too long,
is expensive, and is highly adversarial".
47. The EM explains that initial proposals for
Parliamentary approval of such projects were dropped in 2002,
and that the proposal to speed up the inquiry process on MIPs
by enabling concurrent inquiry sessions to be held was taken forward
instead, and ultimately provided for through section 44 of the
2004 Act. The EM also states that during the passage of the Bill
an amendment was made at House of Lords Consideration of Commons
Amendments stage requiring the preparation of an economic impact
report (EIR) in the cases described above.[6]
48. ODPM have carried out consultation on the
proposals embodied in both instruments.
49. The EM to the Rules states that consultation
on the proposed inquiry procedure rules began in October 2003.
Twenty-seven responses were received (from individual companies,
local planning authorities, environmental groups, planning associations
and advisory bodies and public sector bodies); 16 of these supported
the proposals for concurrent inquiry sessions, five offered support
while also seeking minor rule changes, and six did not comment
on the proposals.
50. The EM to the Order states that a consultation
paper on the proposed changes to the development control system
was issued in November 2004. In relation to the EIR proposals,
there were 55 responses (from individual companies, local planning
authorities, environmental groups, planning associations and advisory
bodies and public sector bodies); 66% of these responses either
positively supported the proposals or had no adverse comments
on them. The EM refers to a more detailed analysis of responses
published on ODPM's website.
51. While this more detailed analysis[7]
is largely consistent with the summary given in the EM, it also
makes it clear that a number of respondents were concerned about
the risk of overlap between the proposed EIR and the existing
mechanism of the environmental impact assessment (EIA).[8]
In this context, the response from the Town and Country Planning
Association (TCPA), while stressing the TCPA's support for the
EIR proposal, comments that "there is a link to Environmental
Impact Assessment that needs to be made here and which is not
referred to in this Consultation Paper … Any EIR carried
out for a major infrastructure project should therefore also be
consistent with the socio-economic analysis and sections of an
EIA and ES, and this should be made a requirement through guidance
in any new Circular advice."[9]
52. The House has taken a close interest in the
Government's evolving proposals for changing the process of handling
MIPs. The Committee considers that the House may wish to note
the manner in which these two instruments take forward important
aspects of those proposals, including the preparation of EIRs
and the holding of concurrent inquiry sessions.
53. We believe that the consultations carried
out by ODPM in the last two years have shown a good deal of support
for the principles underlying these instruments, and for many
of the detailed arrangements which they seek to implement. However,
we note as well that the consultation process has highlighted
a wish on the part of respondents for clarification of the interaction
between existing procedures, such as EIAs, and new mechanisms,
notably EIRs, and we hope that ODPM will provide such clarification
in revising the relevant guidance.
G. SI 2005/2091 Licensing Act 2003 (Second
appointed day) Order 2005
Summary: This Order brings the new licensing regime
into full operation. It sets 24 November 2005 as the date from
which the existing permitted hours for the retail sale of alcohol
in England and Wales will be abolished and the new flexible hours
of trading for pubs and clubs will begin.
These Regulations are drawn to the special attention
of the House on the ground that they give rise to issues of public
policy likely to be of interest to the House.
54. This Order is made under Schedule 8 of the
Licensing Act 2003 and sets 24 November 2005 as the "second
appointed day", that is the date from which new licences
and certificates, which have been issued on conversion from authorisations
under the earlier legislative systems, will take effect.
55. The Licensing Act 2003 provided for a six
month period for those holding existing licences and certificates
to apply to convert them to the new system of premises licences,
club premises certificates and personal licences. Under Schedule
8 to the Act, all such applications will have been determined
within a further period of three months at latest. It is open
to the Secretary of State to set the second appointed day as any
day after the end of the aggregate nine month period following
the first appointed day (7 February 2005). On 24 November, therefore,
all existing licences and certificates will cease to have effect
and all new premises licences and club premises certificates will
be brought into effect.
H. SI 2005/2286 Merchant Shipping (Bridge
Visibility) (Small Passenger Ships) Regulations 2005
Summary: these Regulations reinstate requirements
for passenger ships under 45m in length to be so constructed that
the helmsman has good all-round visibility or, for older ships,
a dedicated lookout posted to cover any obscured area. The original
Regulations implemented the recommendations of the Report into
the loss of the "Marchioness" but were repealed in error
in 1992.
These Regulations are drawn to the special attention
of the House on the ground that they give rise to issues of public
policy likely to be of interest to the House.
56. These Regulations apply specific requirements
to passenger ships under 45 metres in length to ensure that the
helmsman has adequate all-round visibility. They re-implement
the recommendations of the Department for Transport's Marine Accident
Investigation Branch on bridge visibility on passenger ships set
out in their Report in to the loss of the "Marchioness".
57. As the Explanatory Memorandum provided explains,
these provisions were originally contained in the Merchant Shipping
(Passenger Ships of Classes IV, V, VI and VI (A) (Bridge Visibility)
Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992/2357, amended by S.I. 1998/1419).
However they were repealed by the Merchant Shipping (Safety of
Navigation) Regulations 2002 (S.I. 2002/1473). The repeal
of the 1992 Regulations without making provision as respects ships
under 45 metres in length was an error by the Department. This
error was identified by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in
2003 during the drafting of internal guidance issued on 31 December
2003 which related to amendments to Council Directive 98/18/EC
of 17 March 1998 on safety rules and standards for passenger ships.
58. The clear link between these Regulations
and the recommendations of the "Marchioness" Inquiry
makes the gap particularly serious. The House may wish to seek
further information on why it took over 18 months from the problem
being identified for the provisions to be reinstated.
I. SR 2005/367 Education Student Fees
(Approved Plans) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005
Summary: These Regulations detail the content
of access plans for higher education institutions in Northern
Ireland, and set out the process for the approval and variation
of such plans. Earlier this year, the House took a close interest
in the Higher Education (Northern Ireland) Order 2005, which contains
the provisions under which the Regulations are made.
These Regulations are drawn to the special attention
of the House on the ground that they give rise to issues of public
policy likely to be of interest to the House.
59. The Northern Ireland Department for Employment
and Learning (DELNI) have laid these Regulations under Articles
6(2) and (4), 7(4), 8(2) and (4), 9(3), 10(a) to (e) and 14(4)
of SI 2005/1116 Higher Education (Northern Ireland) Order 2005
("the 2005 Order"). DELNI have provided an Explanatory
Memorandum (EM) in support of the Regulations.
60. The Explanatory Note states that these are
the first Regulations made under Articles 6 to 10 of the 2005
Order, and that they prescribe for Northern Ireland various matters
in relation to plans (defined in Article 3 of the 2005 Order)
which a higher education institution (HEI) must have approved
by DELNI before the institution is allowed to charge fees which
exceed the basic amount. This amount is prescribed in SR 2005/290
Student Fees (Amounts) Regulations Northern Ireland 2005 at £1,200.
61. The Committee drew SR 2005/290 to the special
attention of the House in the 5th Report of the current Session.[10]
In doing so, we commented that those were the first Regulations
to be made under Article 4 of the 2005 Order; that the 2005 Order
had been approved by both Houses in March of this year; and that
a number of speakers in the debate in the House on 22 March had
expressed concern not only about the impact on students in Northern
Ireland of the introduction of "top-up fees", but also
about a perceived failure by the Government to respond to the
opposition to the measure voiced by the Northern Ireland political
parties.
62. It is clear that the approach followed by
DELNI for Northern Ireland HEIs is in line with that pursued by
the Department for Education and Skills in relation to HEIs in
England. However, the EM for SR 2005/367 pinpoints the main difference
in the respective approaches as being that, while in England the
Office for Fair Access (OFFA) has responsibility for regulating
and approving access plans submitted by English HEIs, it will
be DELNI which in Northern Ireland, will perform the regulatory
role in relation to access plans submitted by Northern Ireland
HEIs (under guidance from OFFA if necessary).
63. The EM also acknowledges that the 2005 Order
"attracted significant media and political interest. All
Northern Ireland parties were against the introduction of variable
fees and were critical of, in particular, the use of the Order
in Council process to legislate for Northern Ireland."
64. As with the earlier Regulations (SR 2005/290),
we believe that the House will wish to be aware that DELNI have
made use of powers provided by the 2005 Order, in the case of
SR 2005/367 to detail the content of HEI access plans, and the
process for the approval and variation of such plans.
2 Housing Bill, Committee stage, HL Hansard, 16 September
2004, cols 1341 to 1343. Back
3
ODPM consultation paper: "The Right to Buy and Right to Acquire
schemes, and voluntary sales to social tenants: right of first
refusal for social landlords to buy back homes offered for resale"(March
2004). Back
4
The summary can be found at: http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_housing/documents/downloadable/odpm_house_038927.pdf
Back
5
In December 2004, HMT published a consultation paper "Implementation
of the insurers reorganisation and winding-up directive for Lloyd's".
Responses were invited by 11 March 2005. See:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/AE0/22/consult_lloyds_071204.pdf
Back
6
HL Hansard, 26 April 2004, cols 599-603. Back
7
"Changes to the Development Control System: Analysis of Responses",
ODPM, May 2005:
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_planning/documents/page/odpm_plan_037950.pdf
Back
8
"EIA is a procedure that must be followed for certain types
of development before they are granted development consent. The
requirement for EIA comes from a European Directive (85/33/EEC
as amended by 97/11/EC). The procedure requires the developer
to compile an Environmental Statement (ES) describing the likely
significant effects of the development on the environment and
proposed mitigation measures. The ES must be circulated to statutory
consultation bodies and made available to the public for comment.
Its contents, together with any comments, must be taken into account
by the competent authority (e.g. local planning authority) before
it may grant consent" (from ODPM's website). Back
9
See: http://www.tcpa.org.uk/consultation_files/responses2005/ProposedChangestoDevelopmentControlSystem_210205.htm
Back
10
HL Paper 18. Back
| 
