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
|