Draft Offender Management, Draft Protection of Freedoms (Surveillance Camera Systems), Draft Unfair Dismissal Orders - Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee Contents


Sixth Report


Instruments drawn to the special attention of the House

A.  Draft Offender Management Act 2007 (Commencement No. 6) Order 2013

Date laid: 10 June

Parliamentary Procedure: affirmative

SUMMARY: THE OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ACT 2007 INTRODUCED A POWER FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO INCLUDE A POLYGRAPH CONDITION INTO THE LICENCES OF CERTAIN SEXUAL OFFENDERS. FOLLOWING A PILOT EXERCISE EVALUATED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KENT, THIS ORDER PROPOSES TO EXTEND THE USE OF POLYGRAPHS ACROSS THE WHOLE OF ENGLAND AND WALES IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE MOST SERIOUS SEX OFFENDERS FROM 6 JANUARY 2014.

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.

1.  This Order commences sections 28 and 29 of the Offender Management Act 2007 ("the Act") to allow polygraph testing to be used in the management of sex offenders on licence in England and Wales. A previous Order allowed for a time-limited use of the powers for a pilot exercise. The Order is laid by the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) and is accompanied by an Explanatory Memorandum (EM).

2.  The polygraph is a device that measures heart activity, breathing activity and sweating. Changes in these functions can indicate whether an individual is lying or telling the truth in response to set questions. In the pilot, polygraph testing was carried out by trained polygraph examiners directed by probation offender managers. Questions were formulated based on an offender's previous offending and risk of causing harm. The Order is supported by the Polygraph Rules 2009 (SI 2009/619) which govern the conduct of polygraph sessions and set out the required qualifications and experience for polygraph testers. (MOJ state that the Rules do not currently need amendment). The service is provided by a contractor operating under a national draw-down contract with the MoJ.

THE PILOT EXERCISE

3.  The pilot tested all sexual offenders (599) released on licence for the period of the pilot in seven Probation Trusts and ended on 31 March 2012. The polygraph test was used mainly to establish the offender's compliance with specific licence conditions (for example, not to contact a specified person or not to go to a specific place). Information from the polygraph test and information that the offender volunteered (termed "a disclosure") was used to inform risk management decisions, including the decision to recall an offender back to prison because of a breach of licence conditions. Failing the test was not treated as a breach of the licence condition per se but would lead to intensive questioning from the offender manager or checking other sources of information about the offender and, if further information indicated a failure to comply with the licence (or increased risk to others), the offender could be recalled to custody or subject to other actions to manage risk.

4.  A formal evaluation of the polygraph pilot by the University of Kent[1] concluded that sexual offenders subject to testing made more than twice the number of "significant disclosures" than those in the comparison group who had not been subject to polygraph testing. In particular, the evaluation showed that polygraph testing seemed to increase the likelihood of preventative actions being taken by offender managers that would contribute to greater protection of the public from harm. The evaluation study noted however that "each additional clinically significant disclosure elicited by the polygraph costs an estimated £556 [and] its use in any future national roll-out should be subject to a viable commissioning policy [which] might consider how polygraph resources should be effectively targeted, and/or the best way to reduce the costs of polygraph testing".

THE EXPANSION OF THE SCHEME

5.  In the expansion of the scheme, MOJ intend to target the polygraph licence condition on those most likely to re-offend sexually, or who give greatest cause for concern to supervising agencies. This is estimated to meanthat about 750 sexual offenders a year would be subject to mandatory polygraph testing, which represents approximately 25% of the total population of sexual offenders on licence. Capacity to test a further 200 sexual offenders will be built into the provider's contract, to allow the testing of offenders who fall outside this definition but for whom use of the polygraph can be demonstrated to be necessary and proportionate.

6.  MOJ estimate the annual cost of testing 950 offenders, on average twice a year, will be £570,000. This excludes management costs which include training and set up costs and is based on a figure of £300 for each test. Paragraph 10.1 of the EM states: "it will provide a new business opportunity, under contract to the Ministry of Justice, up to the value of £2.7m over an initial 4 year period". This will be funded by the National Offender Management Service offsetting the costs against savings generated from other areas of work.

ECHR CONCERNS

7.  During the course of the pilot, a legal challenge was mounted[2], alleging that the imposition of a polygraph condition was a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and was a disproportionate measure that could not be justified in the public interest. This was successfully resisted. Though the pilot allowed the testing of all sexual offenders on licence, the national roll-out will be targeted at serious sexual offenders and others for whom it is deemed necessary and proportionate. This will further protect offenders' rights and will limit challenges that these rights are being infringed. Section 30 of the Act includes a number of safeguards which prevent the use of evidence from polygraph tests in criminal proceedings.

CONCLUSION

8.  Assurance was given in the House of Lords during the passage of the Act that further rollout would be sanctioned only if it could be shown that polygraph testing was a useful and objective additional tool in assessing and managing the risk posed by sexual offenders. The evidence from the pilot exercise would appear to support the view that the use of the polygraph can be beneficial but the House may wish to note the concerns about costs.

B.  Draft Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Code of Practice for Surveillance Camera Systems and Specification of Relevant Authorities) Order 2013

Date laid: 10 June

Parliamentary Procedure: affirmative

SUMMARY: THIS INSTRUMENT WOULD BRING INTO FORCE THE SURVEILLANCE CAMERA CODE OF PRACTICE LAID ON 4 JUNE 2013. THE CODE SETS OUT 12 GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR THOSE OPERATING AN OVERT SURVEILLANCE CAMERA SYSTEM IN A PUBLIC PLACE AND DRAWS ATTENTION TO THE MAIN LEGISLATION ON THIS SUBJECT. WHILE THE PRINCIPLES THEMSELVES ARE COMMONSENSE, SOME OF THE EXPLANATION IS VAGUE, WITH FREQUENTLY USED TERMS SUCH AS "PROPORTIONATE" OR "APPROPRIATE" LEFT UNDEFINED IN THE CONTEXT. THE ORDER ALSO ADDS FOUR FURTHER BODIES TO THOSE ALREADY UNDER A STATUTORY DUTY TO HAVE REGARD TO THIS CODE, WHICH AT THIS STAGE APPLIES EXCLUSIVELY TO POLICE FORCES AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES. ALL THOSE OPERATING CAMERA SYSTEMS IN SHOPS, BANKS, HOSPITALS AND ELSEWHERE WILL BE "ENCOURAGED" TO VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE BUT NO INDICATION IS GIVEN OF HOW THIS IS TO BE DONE. THE SURVEILLANCE CAMERA COMMISSIONER'S ABILITY TO ACHIEVE WIDESPREAD USE OF THE CODE MAY ALSO BE QUESTIONABLE AS HE HAS NO STATUTORY POWERS FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS OR FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CODE. INAPPROPRIATE USE OF IMAGES OR INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM SUCH A CAMERA SYSTEM WOULD BE INVESTIGATED BY THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AND SANCTIONS IMPOSED UNDER THE DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998. PUBLIC AUTHORITIES ARE IN ANY CASE BOUND BY THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 TO DEMONSTRATE A PRESSING NEED WHEN UNDERTAKING SURVEILLANCE. IT IS THEREFORE NOT IMMEDIATELY APPARENT WHAT VALUE THIS CODE WOULD ADD TO EXISTING POWERS, PARTICULARLY WHEN ADDITIONAL IMPLEMENTATION COSTS OF AN AVERAGE £1.6 MILLION A YEAR ARE CALCULATED. THE HOUSE MAY THEREFORE WISH TO QUESTION THE MINISTER ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT'S PLANS FOR THE WIDER APPLICATION OF THE CODE AND TO INVITE THE MINISTER TO CLARIFY HOW ITS BENEFITS WILL OFFSET THE COSTS OF THE ADDITIONAL BUREAUCRACY INVOLVED.

We draw this Order to the special attention of the House on the ground that it may imperfectly achieve policy objectives.

9.  This Order has been laid by the Home Office accompanied by an Explanatory Memorandum (EM) and an Impact Assessment (IA) to bring into effect the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice which was laid before Parliament on 4 June 2013.

10.  The requirement for such a Code was set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("the 2012 Act") and section 29 of that Act states that the Code must contain guidance about the development or use of surveillance camera system and/or the use or processing of images or other information obtained by virtue of such systems. Such a Code may, in particular, include provision about :

  • considerations as to whether to use surveillance camera systems,
  • types of systems or apparatus,
  • technical standards for systems or apparatus,
  • locations for systems or apparatus,
  • the publication of information about systems or apparatus,
  • standards applicable to persons using or maintaining systems or apparatus,
  • standards applicable to persons using or processing information obtained by virtue of systems,
  • access to, or disclosure of, information so obtained,
  • procedures for complaints or consultation.

11.  The Code laid before the House sets out 12 Guiding Principles for those operating an overt surveillance camera system in a public place and draws attention to the main legislation on this subject (Code paragraph 2.6). While the Principles themselves are commonsense, some of the explanation is vague, with frequently used terms such as "proportionate" or "appropriate" left undefined in the context. The Office of the Surveillance Camera Commissioner will provide supplementary information and advice on appropriate and approved operational and technical standards for both surveillance techniques and equipment (Code paragraph 1.7). The role of the Surveillance Camera Commissioner is quite separate and is described in section 34 of the 2012 Act; the Commissioner was appointed in September 2012.

12.  The policy objective is stated as "overt surveillance in public places should always be in pursuit of a legitimate aim, necessary, proportionate, effective and compliant with relevant legal obligations" (IA). However the Code provides little explanation as to what these terms mean in practice.

13.  The Order also adds four further bodies to those already under a statutory duty to have regard to the Code which at present applies exclusively to police forces and local authorities. All those operating camera systems in shops, banks, hospitals and elsewhere will be "encouraged" to voluntary compliance with the Code but no indication is given of how this is to be done. The Committee is concerned that the Code's proposals for regular publication of information, privacy impact assessments and a complaints system would not easily translate in their present form to a small shop with two cameras to monitor against shop-lifting.

14.  There is no licensing process for surveillance camera systems. Images of people are covered by the Data Protection Act 1998 as personal data, and so a system operator is required to notify the Information Commissioner about the collection of personal data. That notification would not, however, require the provision of details about the surveillance camera system itself such as the number of cameras. The Surveillance Camera Commissioner may therefore lack the information to manage the gradual and incremental development of further regulation mentioned in paragraph 1.2 of the Code.

15.  The Surveillance Camera Commissioner's ability to achieve widespread compliance with the Code may also be questionable as he has no statutory powers for the investigation of complaints or for the enforcement of the Code. Inappropriate use of images or information obtained from such a camera system would be investigated by the Information Commissioner and sanctions imposed under the Data Protection Act 1998. Public authorities are, in any event, bound by the Human Rights Act 1998 to demonstrate a pressing need when undertaking surveillance. It is therefore not immediately apparent what value this Code would add to existing powers, particularly when implementation costs for relevant public authorities are expected to amount to an additional £1.6 million a year. The House may therefore wish to question the Minister about the Government's plans for the wider application of the Code and to invite the Minister to clarify how its benefits will offset the costs of the additional bureaucracy involved.

C.  Draft Unfair Dismissal (Variation of the Limit of Compensatory Award) Order 2013

Date laid: 10 June

Parliamentary Procedure: affirmative

SUMMARY: THERE HAS BEEN A LIMIT ON COMPENSATION FOR UNFAIR DISMISSAL SINCE THE INTRODUCTION OF UNFAIR DISMISSAL RIGHTS IN 1971. IT NOW STANDS AT £74,200. THIS ORDER, LAID BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS, PROPOSES AN ADDITIONAL CAP ON THE AWARD FOR UNFAIR DISMISSAL CLAIMS, WHICH WOULD BE BASED ON 12 MONTHS OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S PAY. THE PAY-BASED CAP WOULD EXIST ALONGSIDE THE CURRENT OVERALL CAP, AND THE APPLICABLE CAP IN AN INDIVIDUAL CASE WOULD BE THE LOWER OF THE TWO.

IN 2012, THE DEPARTMENT CARRIED OUT A CONSULTATION ON TWO ISSUES RELATING TO COMPENSATION FOR UNFAIR DISMISSAL: INTRODUCING THE PAY-BASED CAP, AND THE LEVEL OF THE OVERALL CAP. THERE WAS A LACK OF CONSENSUS ON BOTH ISSUES. IN THE CASE OF THE OVERALL CAP, THE GOVERNMENT SAW THIS AS REASON TO MAKE NO CHANGE; BUT AN EVEN DIVISION OF OPINION AMONG RESPONDENTS HAS NOT HELD IT BACK FROM IMPLEMENTING ITS PROPOSAL TO INTRODUCE THE PAY-BASED CAP. THESE OUTCOMES DO NOT DEMONSTRATE CONSISTENCY IN THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION.

We draw this Order 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.

16.  In the Explanatory Memorandum (EM) to the Order, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) states that the proposed pay-based cap is intended to address unrealistic expectations of awards in unfair dismissal claims. At £74,200, the overall cap is greatly in excess of the median award, which has been around £5,000 for the last seven years. Claimants may expect £74,200 at tribunal, when in reality awards are rarely anywhere near this amount. BIS states that the perception created by this gap means that employers are less likely to take on staff, for fear of being liable for huge sums.

17.  The Department consulted on the issue between 14 September and 23 November 2012. It published the Government response to the consultation in January 2013.[3] There were 119 respondents: 48% favoured the introduction of a cap based on 52 weeks' pay, 45% were opposed and 7% were not sure. BIS identifies the objections raised: perceptions of awards were not in fact unrealistic; introducing a pay-based cap would mean that individuals were not adequately compensated for their losses when making an unfair dismissal claim; and lowering the cap might lead to more claims in other jurisdictions, such as discrimination claims.

18.  BIS explains that the Order is the first use of the power under section 15(1) of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 ("the 2013 Act"), and it refers to concerns about the proposed cap raised during the 2013 Act's passage through Parliament. However, it re-affirms the Government's view that the benefits and support for the introduction of a pay-based cap outweigh the possible risks and disadvantages which respondents and members of both Houses raised.

19.  BIS does not mention in the EM that the 2012 consultation also invited views on whether the overall cap of £74,200 is set at an appropriate level (the Order makes no provision in this respect). In the January 2013 response, however, the Department states that views on this issue were "broadly equal": 37% of respondents believed that the cap was appropriate, 39% believed that it was not, and 20% felt that there should be no cap at all. BIS concludes that, "given the lack of consensus over if and how the current cap should be changed", the Government have decided not to change the overall cap on compensatory awards for unfair dismissal at this time.

20.  It is of course for Government to decide on policy-formulation in the light of consultation responses. We note, however, that there was a lack of consensus on both the key issues relating to compensation for unfair dismissal canvassed in the 2012 consultation process. In the case of the overall cap, the Government saw this as reason to make no change. By contrast, an even division of opinion among respondents has not held the Government back from implementing its proposal to introduce a pay-based cap. It is hard to see these outcomes as demonstrating consistency in the Government's response to consultation.

D.  Addendum on the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust (Appointment of Trust Special Administrators) Order 2013 (SI 2013/838)

21.  In the Committee's 1st Report of this session (HL Paper 4) we alerted the House to the appointment of three Trust Special Administrators who were due to report on 19 June on how improvements to the Trust are to be effected. The Department of Health has laid an instrument[4] - that is not subject to any Parliamentary procedure - to extend the reporting period by another 30 working days. The consultation period is also extended by 10 working days in recognition of the fact that it will now take place during the long recess. The revised timetable is now: the Administrators' Report will be published no later than 31 July, the consultation exercise on it is expected to begin in the week commencing 5 August and end in the week commencing 30 September.

Other Instruments of Interest

DRAFT ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENT FUND MANAGERS REGULATIONS 2013

22.  HM Treasury (HMT) has laid these draft Regulations, with an Explanatory Memorandum (EM), transposition table, and impact assessment. The Regulations implement the majority of the EU Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive.[5] In the EM, HMT states that the Directive aims to establish an EU-wide harmonised framework for monitoring, reporting on and supervising risks posed by Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFMs) and the funds they manage, and for strengthening the internal market in alternative investment funds (AIFs).[6] All fund managers in scope must be authorised by national authorities in the managers' Member States: in the UK, by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).

23.  HMT notes that the proposal for the Directive was reported on by the European Union Committee of this House in its 3rd Report of Session 2009-10 (HL Paper 48), and was debated in the House on 6 July 2010.[7] In the debate, the Chairman of the relevant EU Sub-Committee warned that the AIFM Directive could cause substantial damage to an industry worth €250 billion in Europe and the UK. Subsequent negotiation on the proposed Directive secured a number of changes to its provisions which HMT saw as beneficial to the UK's position.

24.  In the EM, HMT says that the UK is a major hub for the management of AIFs: there are estimated to be at least 850 fund management companies in the UK, managing £550 billion of assets in AIFs both in the UK and abroad. In a consultation paper published in March 2013,[8] HMT stated that the Government's overall approach to transposing EU legislation was to minimise the regulatory burden on firms. In implementing the AIFM Directive, the approach was intended to maintain and enhance the UK's competitiveness as a centre in which to manage and domicile funds; and also to ensure strong consumer protection and to maintain and enhance confidence in the regulatory system. The UK's approach to implementation takes advantage of a number of derogations to mitigate the impact of the Directive on industry in this country.

25.  Nonetheless, as HMT says in the EM, the approach means that the AIFM industry will face additional one-off costs of £226-353 million and £0.863-£1.8 billion in annual ongoing costs. Depositaries will also face £4 million in one-off costs and £3 million in annual ongoing costs, in order to be permitted to provide regulated functions to authorised AIFMs. HMT states that these costs reflect the transposition where the Government had no discretion.

DRAFT SOCIAL SECURITY, CHILD SUPPORT, VACCINE DAMAGE AND OTHER PAYMENTS (DECISIONS AND APPEALS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2013

26.  These Regulations use powers inserted by section 102 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 to require a person to apply for a decision on the listed benefits to be reconsidered by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) before they can lodge an external appeal. This system has already been introduced for Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment.[9] These Regulations extend the requirement to the rest of the major Social Security Benefits and to child support. In recent years appeals, in the Social Security and Child Support jurisdiction have risen from 229,123 in 2007-08 to 370,797 in 2011-12. The aim of introducing mandatory reconsideration is to reduce the number of external appeals. Whenever possible, a different decision-maker will review the initial decision and provide a thorough explanation of the disputed decision with the aim of trying to resolve the dispute. Where further action is required, appeals will need to be lodged directly with the First-tier Tribunal, rather than the Department as they are now. This brings the Social Entitlement Chamber into line with all the other major Tribunals and is intended to make it clearer to the appellant where responsibility for deciding their case lies. DWP state that "direct lodgement" will not involve any additional costs for the appellant.

RESIDENTIAL HOLIDAY SCHEMES FOR DISABLED CHILDREN (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2013 (SI 2013/1394)

27.  These Regulations, laid by the Department for Education (DfE), set out the regulatory framework for holiday schemes for disabled children. They largely mirror provisions in an earlier instrument,[10] but reduce the regulatory burden by enabling such schemes to operate across several sites under one registration.

28.  In February of this year, we published information[11] about the Care Standards Act 2000 (Extension of the Application of Part 2 to Holiday Schemes for Disabled Children) (England) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/253), which paved the way for the latest set of Regulations.[12] We criticised the fact that DfE had not then published the summary of the relevant consultation process, and intended to do so only when the latest Regulations came forward. The summary was published in June of this year.[13]

29.  In February, we queried why DfE had allowed little more than four weeks for the consultation, which ran from 5 September to 5 October 2012. DfE told us that providers sought the earliest resolution to effect changes to current legislation in time for this year; and that, once SI 2013/253 was in force, the second set of Regulations would be made, with effect from 1 April 2013.

30.  In fact, the latest Regulations will come into force only on 1 July 2013. DfE now states that the complexity of implementing one of the core requirements from schemes (operation across a number of sites under only one registration) required further discussion with stakeholders to ensure that the proposed response was fit for purpose.

31.  We see no reason to doubt that the changes resulting from these Regulations will be helpful to the operators of holiday schemes for disabled children. However, we are not impressed by the Department's handling of policy development in this case. The time allowed for formal consultation was very short, and yet the Department still failed to meet its own early deadline for introducing the substantive set of Regulations. In our view, consultation periods should not be shorter than six weeks unless there are reasons of exceptional urgency, which we do not recognise in the case of this instrument.

CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT NO. 4) RULES 2013 (SI 2013/1412)

32.  This instrument amends the Civil Procedure Rules to:

  • shorten the time limit for bringing a Judicial Review to six weeks in certain planning cases and to 30 days in certain procurement cases, and
  • remove the right to a reconsideration hearing of the refusal of permission to allow Judicial Review ("oral renewal") in cases in any area of civil law where the application is certified as totally without merit by the Judge considering the application on the papers.

33.  The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) state that the policy intention of the removal of oral renewal is to reduce delays and costs by targeting weak cases to ensure that they are filtered out at an early stage of proceedings. However a person would still be entitled to appeal the refusal to the Court of Appeal (on the papers). These are controversial matters and the majority of respondents opposed the change. We also note that the MoJ conducted their consultation on these proposals between 13 December 2012 and 24 January 2013 and a number of respondents complained that the timing of it had effectively halved the time available for comment. We do not regard this as good practice.

ALLOCATION OF HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS (ELIGIBILITY) (ENGLAND) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2013 (SI 2013/1467)

34.  Croatia will accede to the European Union ("EU") on 1 July 2013. EU Member States are entitled to regulate access to their labour market by nationals of Croatia during a transitional period. In the UK, this is done by provisions in the Accession of Croatia (Immigration and Worker Authorisation) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/1460: "the Accession Regulations").

35.  The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has laid the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Eligibility) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2013, with an Explanatory Memorandum (EM). In the EM, DCLG states that the Government's policy is that European Economic Area nationals working lawfully in the UK should be eligible for an allocation of housing accommodation or homelessness assistance in accordance with their rights under EU law. The objective of these Regulations is to provide that nationals of Croatia who are working in the UK in accordance with the Accession Regulations will be exempted from the requirement to be habitually resident in the Common Travel Area[14] in order to be eligible for an allocation or homelessness assistance.

36.  DCLG adds that the Accession Regulations are intended to limit the number of Croatian nationals who may work lawfully in the UK during the transitional period, and that therefore it is anticipated that there will be only a small number of persons affected by the provisions of these Regulations.

Instruments not drawn to the special attention of the house

The Committee has considered the instruments set out below and has determined that the special attention of the House need not be drawn to them.

Draft instruments subject to affirmative approval

  Alternative Investment Fund Managers Regulations 2013

  Companies Act 2006 (Strategic Report and Directors' Report) Regulations 2013

  Education (Amendment of the Curriculum Requirements) (England) Order 2013

  Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2013

  Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 2013

  Social Security, Child Support, Vaccine Damage and Other Payments (Decisions and Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 2013

Instruments subject to annulment

HC 244  Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules

SI 2013/1255  Information as to Provision of Education (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2013

SI 2013/1387  Construction Products Regulations 2013

SI 2013/1392  Firefighters' Pension Scheme (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order 2013

SI 2013/1393  Firefighters' Pension Scheme (England) (Amendment) (No.2) Order 2013

SI 2013/1394  Residential Holiday Schemes for Disabled Children (England) Regulations 2013

SI 2013/1412  Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 4) Rules 2013

SI 2013/1413  Care Quality Commission (Additional Functions) Amendment Regulations 2013

SI 2013/1414  National Health Service Pension Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2013

SI 2013/1420  Gas and Electricity (Registers) (Revocation) Order 2013

SI 2013/1431  Public Contracts and Defence and Security Public Contracts (Croatia Accession Amendments) Regulations 2013

SI 2013/1461  Assured and Protected Tenancies (Lettings to Students) (Amendment) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2013

SI 2013/1467  Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Eligibility) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2013


1   https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-evaluation-of-the-mandatory-polygraph-pilot Back

2   Corbett vs The Secretary of State for Justice and the National Offender Management Service -NOMS Back

3   See: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/ending-the-employment-relationship Back

4   Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust (Trust Special Administrators Extension of Time) Order 2013 (SI 2013/1483) Back

5   Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and the Council on Alternative Investment Fund Managers. The Directive is among the measures proposed in recent years by the European Commission to regulate financial services in the wake of the global financial crisis. Back

6   Alternative Investment Funds include hedge funds, private equity funds, venture capital firms, commodities and real estate funds. Back

7   See: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/100706-0002.htm#10070659000125 Back

8  See:https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/transposition-of-the-alternative-investment-fund-managers-directive

 Back

9   See The Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker's Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/381). Back

10   The Children's Homes Regulations 2001: SI 2001/3967. Back

11   28th Report, Session 2012-13, HL Paper 123. Back

12   They did so by allowing Part 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000 to be applied to proprietors of the holiday schemes for disabled children. Back

13  See: https://www.education.gov.uk/consultations/index.cfm?action=conResults&consultationId=1840&external=no&menu=3  Back

14   For these purposes, the Common Travel Area consists of the UK, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the Republic of Ireland. Back


 
previous page contents next page


© Parliamentary copyright 2013