Thirty Third Report
WORK OF THE
COMMITTEE IN SESSION 2014-15
1. As well as containing the Committee's usual
commentary on any statutory instruments likely to be of interest
to the House identified at our weekly scrutiny meeting, this report
contains a brief overview of the entire range of instruments we
have considered in Session 2014-15: see paragraph 38 onwards.
Instruments drawn
to the Special Attention of the House
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. Local Government (Prohibition of Charges
at Household Waste Recycling Centres) (England) Order 2015 (SI
2015/619)
Date laid: 12 March 2015
Parliamentary Procedure: negative
Summary: This Order prohibits local authorities
in England from charging their residents either to enter into,
or exit from, household waste recycling centres, or to deposit
household waste or recycling at such centres. The Department consulted
over four weeks, from 22 January to 18 February 2015: one in five
of the respondents criticised the period allowed to respond.
We do not consider that the Department for Communities and
Local Government handled the relevant consultation process in
a sufficiently balanced manner.
We draw this Order to the special attention of
the House on the ground that there appear to be inadequacies in
the consultation process which relates to the instrument.
2. On 25 February 2015, the Department for Communities
and Local Government (DCLG) laid the draft Local Authorities (Prohibition
of Charging Residents to Deposit Household Waste) Order 2015 ("the
draft 2015 Order"), which proposes to prohibit local authorities
from using the general power under the Localism Act 2011 to charge
their residents either to enter into, or exit from, household
waste recycling centres. In our 29th Report of this Session,[1]
we drew that draft Order to the special attention of the House
on the ground that there appeared to be inadequacies in the consultation
process which related to the instrument. The draft 2015 Order
was considered in Grand Committee on 23 March.
3. DCLG has now laid the Local Government (Prohibition
of Charges at Household Waste Recycling Centres) (England) Order
2015 (SI 2015/619). In the accompanying Explanatory Memorandum
(EM), the Department says that authorities have the power to charge
for discretionary services under the Local Government Act 2003
("the 2003 Act"). SI 2015/619 disapplies the relevant
provisions in the 2003 Act[2]
in connection with the provision of household waste recycling
centres by relevant authorities for their residents to deposit
household waste or recycling, to reinforce the prohibition already
proposed under the draft 2015 Order.
4. DCLG gives the same explanation of the policy
background and of the consultation process in the EM to SI 2015/619
as it did in the EM to the draft 2015 Order. In bringing that
draft Order to the special attention of the House, we said that
we did not consider that the Department for Communities and
Local Government had handled the relevant consultation process
in a sufficiently balanced manner. We remain of that view, which
is equally pertinent to the latest instrument.
B. Police Federation (Amendment) Regulations
2015 (SI 2015/630)
Date laid: 12 March 2015
Parliamentary Procedure: negative
Summary: A major review in 2014 by Sir David Normington
recommended that there should be greater national oversight and
transparency of the Police Federation's Finances. These Regulations
remove the "closed shop" in the Federation, allow police
personnel to join the Federation when they wish to (including
only after an incident for which they might require legal help
or advice), and allow members to choose whether to pay the subscription
or not. Objections have been raised that the Federation cannot
perform its functions without adequate funds. The Committee is
surprised that no estimate of the predicted financial impact of
this legislation on the Federation is provided.
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.
5. These Regulations are laid under section 60
of the Police Act 1996 by the Home Office and are accompanied
by an Explanatory Memorandum. Letters from Baroness Harris of
Richmond and the Police Federation are published on our website.
6. The Police Federation of England and Wales
(PFEW) is one of the largest staff associations in the UK, representing
the interests of all police constables, sergeants and inspectors
(including chief inspectors). A major review in 2014 by Sir David
Normington recommended that there should be greater national oversight
and transparency of the Federation's finances.
7. These Regulations
- remove the "closed
shop" in the Federation
- allow police personnel to join the Federation
when they wish to (including only after an incident for which
they might require legal help or advice)
- allow members to choose whether to pay the
subscription or not.
Optional subscription
8. The concept of not allowing a closed shop
to operate is well established but no-one, including the Home
Office, is aware of a precedent for the proposal that members
can opt into a "union" and use its services without
also paying a subscription. The Home Office confirmed that:
"these regulatory
changes will allow an officer to join the PFEW at any point they
wish, even if that happens to be after an incident for which they
would like advice. Regulation 4, paragraph (3)(e) would allow
an officer opting to join and pay voluntary subscriptions to have
the same entitlement to provision of advice and representation
in relation to specified matters as a member who opted to join
under subparagraph (3)(a). This entitlement would only commence
at the point of opting to pay voluntary subscriptions.
So, for example, if an officer chose
not to join the PFEW at the point of joining his/her force, but
9 months later found themselves in need of support for a disciplinary
issue, they could join the PFEW at that point. However, they would
only be entitled to provision and support (at the same level as
a member who had joined earlier) from the day on which they joined
and started paying voluntary subscriptions."
9. In relation to the new requirements the Home
Office has stated:
"The current position, until these
Regulations come into force, is that membership of the PFEW is
compulsory for an officer (of a federated or inspecting rank),
but it is already possible for them to withhold the payment of
their subscriptions. Officers who currently withhold payment of
their subscriptions have a limited entitlement to support from
the PFEW (compared to a member paying their subscription fees).
It is the view of the Government that these officers should continue
to have the option of PFEW membership without the payment of subscriptions,
but that this should be made more explicit and members should
be notified of this option. These changes bring into effect the
Government's intention that the presumption of automatic membership
and payment of subscriptions be reversed, and that the PFEW should
earn the right to represent police officers and make a compelling
case to persuade them of the merits of being a member and paying
subscription fees."
10. The Home Office also states that, apart from
the provisions about specified matters outlined in these Regulations,
legislation does not otherwise set out which members are eligible
for what benefit. Further detail on the specific benefits that
the Federation provides and the eligibility criteria for these
benefits would be outlined in the Police Federation's Fund Rules.
The Committee is surprised however that no estimate of the predicted
financial impact of this legislation on the Federation is provided.
Objections made
11. Baroness Harris of Richmond has written to
the Committee questioning how the Police Federation can be expected
to represent its members without adequate funds, particularly
in respect of litigation which is very expensive.
12. The Police Federation objects in principle
to Government interference in its funding arrangements and states
that it should be a matter for the Federation as it is for all
other staff associations. The Federation particularly objects
to the requirement that it must provide services to someone who
has not previously subscribed at the same level as a long-term
subscriber. The letter compares the proposal to "a driver
using an uninsured motor vehicle, having an accident and then
contacting the insurance company for cover after the event."
Both letters are published in full on the Committee's website.
The House will wish to note this development as a matter of policy
interest.
C. Temporary Exclusion Orders (Notices) Regulations
2015 (SI 2015/438)
Date laid: 3 March
Parliamentary Procedure: negative
Summary: These Regulations make provision for
the timing and method of giving notice of a Temporary Exclusion
Order (TEO) to disrupt the travel plans of an individual (P) who
has been abroad participating in terrorism-related activity. The
Regulations set out the circumstances in which such a notice is
to be deemed to have been given to P, leading the Committee to
question the function of "P's representative" in these
Regulations and the willingness of anyone to undertake that role.
We also learned that the use of these Orders would not be comprehensive,
depending on which country the subject of the notice was intending
to travel from. A letter that sets out the Home Office view of
how the Regulations will operate is published in Appendix 1 to
this Report. If not already aware, the House will wish to note
these clarifications on how the TEO system will operate.
This instrument 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.
13. These Regulations are made by the Home Office
under provisions in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015
("the Act") which received Royal Assent on 12 February
2015; the power to make temporary exclusion orders (TEOs) came
into force the following day. The instrument is accompanied by
an Explanatory Memorandum (EM). A letter from the Home Office
Minister explaining how the Regulations are intended to operate
is published at Appendix 1 of this Report.
Background
14. Providing that a number of conditions set
out in the Act are met, the Secretary of State may issue a TEO
that requires an individual (P), who has been abroad participating
in terrorism-related activity, not to return to the United Kingdom
unless:
(a) the return is in accordance with a permit
to return issued by the Secretary of State before the individual
began the return, or
(b) the return is the result of the individual's
deportation to the United Kingdom.
The Secretary of State may also impose
certain conditions on an individual who is subject to a TEO, on
their return to the United Kingdom. These Regulations make provision
for the timing and method of giving notice of a TEO to the individual,
and the circumstances in which notice is to be deemed to have
been given.
P's representative
15. Regulation 3 states that service of the notice
on "P's representative" will count as delivery to P.
In considering the instrument the Committee queried who P's representative
might be. As further information from Home Office officials did
not sufficiently clarify that point, the Committee sought explanation
from the Minister, James Brokenshire MP, whose letter, published
in Appendix 1, states that it would be a parent for someone under
18 years of age or a legal representative. We question how many
people going abroad to participate in illegal activities would
take the precaution of engaging a solicitor first. We also question
whether anyone would wish to take on this role for fear of being
suspected of promoting terrorism themselves; the Minister's letter
also addresses that point.
Effectiveness depending on route taken
16. Our exchanges with Home Office officials
raised practical questions about the point at which the absent
P might find out about the TEO. Supplementary information stated
that "the precise steps will depend on the country from which
the individual is travelling". That the TEO system might
not be comprehensive was an aspect that had not been made clear
in the secondary legislation. The Minister's letter states that
the
"issue touches on the broader policy issues
and the underlying primary legislation rather than the specifics
of the regulations themselves but, as the Government made clear
throughout the passage of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act,
the operation of this power will depend on the circumstances of
each case.
The Government has engaged
with a number of international partners on the implementation
of this measure. As explained during the Bill's passage, we have
prioritised engagement with Turkey, France, and a number of other
EU countries. This is for the obvious reason that these are the
countries which are currently most likely to be transited by people
travelling to or from Syria or Iraq. As the Government also made
clear, it is mindful of the possibility that those subject to
TEOs might be exposed to risks in particular countries as a result
of being subject to a TEO. It is therefore perfectly proper that
in some instances, in order to avoid these risks materialising,
the Government would choose not to liaise with certain countries
to enforce a TEO. The need to prioritise work with particular
countries, and to treat certain countries differently, was made
clear and, I believe, recognised by both Houses, in approving
the measure."
17. If not already aware, the House will wish
to note these clarifications on how the TEO system will operate.
Correspondence
Section 2.01 School Governance (Constitution
and Federations) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/1257)
18. The Department for Education (DfE) laid these
Regulations in May 2014. They served several purposes, including
providing that, by 1 September 2015, all maintained school governing
bodies in England would have to be constituted under the framework
established by Regulations in place since 2012, and ensuring that
governors had the skills required to contribute to the effective
governance and success of schools or federations of schools.
19. We drew the Regulations to the attention
of the House, on the ground of policy interest, in our 2nd Report
of Session 2014-15.[3]
We commented that the Department intended that, in reviewing
the adequacy of their constitution and membership, the governing
bodies of maintained schools should take the skills that governors
required to be effective as a primary consideration. We noted
that Ofsted's recent inspections of academies and maintained schools
in Birmingham had underlined the importance of effective governance,
and that the Department intended to monitor the operation of the
Regulations through its Advisory Group on Governance. Finally,
we said that we looked to the Department to treat this monitoring
as a priority, and we expected that the House would wish to be
informed of the outcome of this monitoring by the end of the Session.
20. On 23 March 2015, Lord Nash, Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State for Schools in DfE, wrote to us with
a response to the comments which we included in our 2nd Report.
We are publishing the letter as Appendix 2. We welcome the information
which Lord Nash has provided, and note that the monitoring of
the reconstitution of governing bodies continues. We trust that
the Department will report again on this process in the new Parliament.
Instruments of Interest
Section 3.01 Universal Credit (EEA Jobseekers)
Amendment Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/546)
21. Currently, the Universal Credit Regulations
2013 (SI 2013/376) state that a person must be present in Great
Britain and have a right to reside in the Common Travel Area in
order to be entitled to Universal Credit. Following the amendment
made by these Regulations, a national of the European Economic
Area (EEA) entering the UK to look for work, or who is here already
and claims benefit as a jobseeker, will not qualify for Universal
Credit. (It should be noted that this exclusion does not affect
EEA nationals who have been working in the UK for an employer
or as a self-employed person, who may retain their worker status
during periods of involuntary unemployment.) Although the front
of the instrument mentions that the Department's statutory obligation
to consult the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) has been
met, there is no reference to it in the Explanatory Memorandum.
Although the SSAC decided not to issue a formal report on this
occasion,[4]
it did express some concerns in correspondence with the Department
for Work and Pensions, in particular about the hardship that may
fall on the dependents of a refused claimant and the impact on
Local Authorities who are required to provide a final safety net
for them. The Secretary of State's response reassures that the
actual numbers affected will be monitored and consideration given
as to whether any further exemptions might be required. The correspondence
can be read here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/universal-credit-entitlement-of-eea-nationals,
but we find it unacceptable that the DWP neglected to make
any mention of these comments in the Explanatory Memorandum.
Section 3.02 Solvency 2 Regulations 2015
(SI 2015/575)
22. HM Treasury (HMT) has laid these Regulations
with an Explanatory Memorandum (EM), Transposition Note and Impact
Assessment. The Regulations implement, in part, the Solvency 2
Directive.[5] HMT says
that the Directive aims to build on previous insurance directives
to create risk-sensitive, harmonised requirements for EU insurers,
which will ensure strong standards of policyholder protection
and will help to promote competition, innovation and consumer
choice across the single market. It adds that the UK Government
are a strong supporter of the Solvency 2 Directive, which adopts
the UK model of risk-based regulation and incorporates lessons
learned from the financial crisis by ensuring that insurers must
be able to withstand financial market shocks. The Regulations
impose duties on the Prudential Regulation Authority ("PRA")
and the Financial Conduct Authority and give insurance undertakings
and reinsurance undertakings the right to apply to the PRA for
specified approvals relating to the Solvency 2 Directive (for
example, the right to modify their risk assessment process).
23. In the EM, HMT sets the impact of the Solvency
2 Directive on business at approximately £2.7 billion in
one-off implementation costs and £200 million ongoing yearly
costs (for the next ten years). However, to place these costs
in context, it says that the UK insurance industry is estimated
to receive approximately £188 billion in written insurance
premium annually; and that there are also expected benefits to
the UK insurance sector from the Solvency 2 Directive, estimated
at almost £500 million per year (for the next 10 years).
Monetised benefits include a reduced cost of capital, improved
efficiency of risk and capital management and additional investment
income.
Section 3.03 Firefighters' Pension Scheme
(Amendment) (England) Order 2015 (SI 2015/579)
Firefighters' Pension Scheme (England) (Transitional and Consequential
Provisions) Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/589)
Firefighters' Compensation Scheme and Pension Scheme (England)
(Amendment) Order 2015 (SI 2015/590)
24. The Department for Communities and Local
Government (DCLG) has laid these three instruments, each with
an Explanatory Memorandum (EM). On 10 March 2015, when the instruments
were laid, there was also a Written Ministerial Statement (WMS)[6]
by the Department. This referred to the Independent Public Service
Pensions Commission, chaired by Lord Hutton, which (among other
things) found that the Firefighters' Pension Scheme 1992 was the
most expensive public service pension scheme.
25. The main recommendation from the Commission's
final report was that the current final salary public service
pension schemes should be replaced by new schemes, which would
continue to be defined benefit schemes with pension entitlement
linked to salary, but pension benefits would be based on career
average earnings, not final salary. On 28 October 2014, the Firefighters'
Pension Scheme (England) Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/2848)[7]
were laid, setting out the main elements of a new career average
pension scheme to be introduced from 1 April 2015 ("the 2015
Scheme").
26. The Firefighters' Pension Scheme (England)
(Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Regulations 2015
(SI 2015/589) specify how the benefits of firefighters who are
moving from the earlier pension schemes into the 2015 Scheme will
be protected. Benefits already accrued by members under the existing
schemes will be preserved and continue to be linked to final salary.
In addition, no firefighter will have to work beyond their current
expected normal pension age until 2022.
27. The Firefighters' Compensation Scheme
and Pension Scheme (England) (Amendment) Order 2015 (SI 2015/590)
updates the provisions relating to compensation for injury so
that they also apply to members of the 2015 Scheme; gives authorities
an additional six months to complete enrolling eligible firefighters
into the modified scheme for retained staff who were unable to
access a pension scheme between 2000 and 2006; and increases the
pay bands that determine contribution rates under the 2006 scheme
by 1% each year to 1 April 2018, in line with the 2015 scheme,
so as to avoid a scheme member being drawn into a higher contribution
band because of a pay rise designed to reflect inflation. The
Firefighters' Pension Scheme (Amendment) (England) Order 2015
(SI 2015/579) makes this latter change, but in respect of
the 1992 scheme.
28. In the March WMS, the Department stated that
these instruments will ensure that the 2015 scheme can come fully
into effect on 1 April, as required by the Public Service Pensions
Act 2013.
Section 3.04 Police Appeals Tribunals (Amendment)
Rules 2015 (SI 2015/625)
Section 3.05 Police (Conduct) (Amendment)
Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/626)
29. Following the review by Mark Ellison QC into
possible corruption and the role of undercover policing in the
Stephen Lawrence case, the Home Office proposes to change the
Police conduct arrangements so that Police whistle-blowers
are able to come forward with confidence that they will be protected.
30. The Home Office also states that, to counteract
the damage done to public confidence in the Police by recent revelations
of both current and historic Police misconduct, it now considers
it to be in the public interest for Police disciplinary hearings
and appeals to be generally held in public and with a legally
qualified chair. Disciplinary hearings deal with acts of misconduct
by police officers so serious that, if proven, dismissal may be
justified. Misconduct meetings, which deal with lower level misconduct,
will remain private. Because national security issues or ongoing
investigations could be compromised in certain cases, the Home
Office will issue guidance on the circumstances that should be
considered before excluding any person from all or part of the
hearing.[8] Additionally,
to ensure that any officer dismissed from the Police is not reemployed
by another force, the College of Policing is to be informed when
any officer is dismissed so that Police forces will be able to
use that information as part of their vetting of potential recruits.
Section 3.06 Asylum Support (Amendment)
Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/645)
31. The Home Office provides support to destitute
asylum seekers and their dependants in the form of accommodation
plus a weekly cash allowance to enable them to meet other "essential
living needs". The current level of payment depends on the
age of the individual, with the amount for each child (£52.96)
and under 18 year old (£39.80) being higher than for adults.
The rates have been unchanged since 2011, but in 2013 payment
levels were challenged in the High Court. The Home Office conducted
a further review in 2014, using a methodology developed to take
account of the findings of the court, but did not alter the payments.
This year's review has also been conducted according to the new
methodology and has concluded that the current rate of £36.62
per week for a single person without dependants is marginally
too low and should be increased to £36.95.
32. The Home Office review also looked at the
sums provided to families and found that they significantly exceed
what is necessary to meet essential living needs because the sum
takes no account of the economies of scale available to a household.
These Regulations therefore move to a simplified system where
a standard rate (£36.95) is provided to each supported person
of whatever age. The effect of this will be that a couple with
two children, currently paid £178.44 a week will, from 6
April, receive £147.80 per week. The Committee was particularly
concerned that there are no transitional provisions indicated,
so that current recipients will experience a sudden drop in income
in April. There is also no mention of how the change is to be
communicated to recipients.
Section 3.07 Town and Country Planning
(General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2015
(SI 2015/659)
33. On 26 January 2015, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
repeated a Written Statement about Community Pubs.[9]
He said that the Government planned to bring forward secondary
legislation at the earliest opportunity so that in England the
listing of a pub as an Asset of Community Value[10]
would trigger a removal of the national permitted development
rights for the change of use or demolition of those pubs that
communities have identified as providing the most community benefit.
That is the purpose of this Order, laid by the Department for
Communities and Local Government (DCLG). In amending earlier legislation,[11]
the Order provides that development which comprises the change
of use or demolition of buildings which are used as drinking establishments
and which are supported by the local community is not permitted
development for the purposes of the General Permitted Development
Order.
Section 3.08 City of Birmingham (Scheme
of Elections) (Amendment) Order 2015 (SI 2015/666)
34. On 22 January, the Department for Communities
and Local Government (DCLG) laid the City of Birmingham (Scheme
of Elections) Order 2015 (SI 2015/43), to specify a scheme of
elections for the ordinary elections of councillors of the City
from 2017 onwards, consisting of whole council elections every
four years. In the accompanying Explanatory Memorandum (EM), DCLG
explained that the Order followed a review of the governance and
organisational capabilities of the City council, led by Sir Bob
Kerslake, which recommended in December 2014 that a combination
of predominantly single member wards, a smaller number of members
and all-out elections would make the council stronger and much
more directly accountable.[12]
SI 2015/43 came into force on 16 February.
35. On 13 March, DCLG laid this Order to amend
SI 2015/43, so that the first elections of city Councillors will
take place in 2018, not 2017. In the EM to the amending Order,
DCLG says that having whole council elections in Birmingham in
2017 would result in elections being held in a year when generally
no elections are held in metropolitan district councils; and that,
if 2017 were an election year in Birmingham, it would mean that,
in 2017, only one of the seven West Midlands authorities would
hold an election, which would be "potentially confusing to
the electorate across the West Midlands".
36. On 16 March, the House considered a motion,
moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, to take note of SI 2015/43.[13]
In responding to the debate, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State at DCLG, acknowledged that, following
publication of the Kerslake review, matters had moved swiftly.
He said that, for the reasons set out in the EM, the Department
had been persuaded that a start date of 2018 would be better than
2017. We are left with the impression that, since the general
timing of future elections in metropolitan district councils has
not changed over the last year, the Department's efforts to move
matters forward swiftly may have been at the expense of full consideration
of the implications of the changes being made, with the resultant
need for an amending instrument to be laid less than two months
after the first Order.
Section 3.09 Civil Procedure (Amendment
No. 2) Rules 2015 (SI 2015/670)
37. These measures are part of the wider Government
policy to reform the role of judicial reviews. Following further
consultation, and measures in sections 84 and 87 of the Criminal
Justice and Courts Act 2015, these Rules amend the courts' handling
of judicial reviews that may be refused on the grounds that any
decision would be highly likely to have made no substantial difference
to the outcome. The Rule change also allows a party to a judicial
review to apply to the court to have an intervener pay costs incurred
as a result of the intervention. The Ministry of Justice state
that the policy intention is to ensure that those who voluntarily
intervene in a judicial review do so with a more appropriate measure
of costs liability.
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
Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment)
(No.2) Order 2015
Section 4.01 Draft instruments subject
to annulment
HC 1116 Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules
Section 4.02 Instruments subject to annulment
SI 2015/482 Occupational and Personal Pension
Schemes (Disclosure of Information) (Amendment) Regulations 2015
SI 2015/483 Control of Major Accident Hazards
Regulations 2015
SI 2015/493 Occupational Pension Schemes (Consequential
and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2015
SI 2015/494 Smaller Authorities (Transparency
Requirements) (England) Regulations 2015
SI 2015/496 Social Security Benefits Up-rating
Regulations 2015
SI 2015/498 Occupational and Personal Pension
Schemes (Transfer Values) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations
2015
SI 2015/501 Occupational and Personal Pension
Schemes (Automatic Enrolment) (Amendment) Regulations 2015
SI 2015/508 Merchant Shipping (Survey and Certification)
Regulations 2015
SI 2015/518 Country of Origin of Certain Meats
(England) Regulations 2015
SI 2015/533 Judicial Pensions (Miscellaneous)
(Amendment) Regulations 2015
SI 2015/546 Universal Credit (EEA Jobseekers)
Amendment Regulations 2015
SI 2015/548 Court of Protection (Amendment) Rules
2015
SI 2015/551 Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of
Education, Children's Services and Skills (Fees and Frequency
of Inspections) (Children's Homes etc.) Regulations 2015
SI 2015/559 National Health Service (Clinical
Negligence Scheme) Regulations 2015
SI 2015/564 Immigration (Biometric Registration)
(Objection to Civil Penalty) (Amendment) Order 2015
SI 2015/565 Immigration (Biometric Registration)
(Civil Penalty Code of Practice) Order 2015
SI 2015/568 Armed Forces (Transitional Provisions)
Pensions Regulations 2015
SI 2015/569 Recovery of Costs (Remand to Youth
Detention Accommodation) (Amendment) Regulations 2015
SI 2015/570 National Health Service (Charges
for Drugs and Appliances) Regulations 2015
SI 2015/573 Harbour Directions (Designation of
Harbour Authorities) Order 2015
SI 2015/575 Solvency 2 Regulations 2015
SI 2015/579 Firefighters' Pension Scheme (Amendment)
(England) Order 2015
SI 2015/580 Public Service Pensions Act 2013
(Judicial Offices) Order 2015
SI 2015/581 National Health Service Pension Scheme
(Amendment) Regulations 2015
SI 2015/589 Firefighters' Pension Scheme (England)
(Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Regulations 2015
SI 2015/590 Firefighters' Compensation Scheme
and Pension Scheme (England) (Amendment) Order 2015
SI 2015/592 Teachers' Pension Scheme (Amendment)
Regulations 2015
SI 2015/594 Teachers' Superannuation (Additional
Voluntary Contributions) (Amendment) Regulations 2015
SI 2015/600 Child Trust Funds (Amendment) Regulations
2015
SI 2015/601 Teachers (Compensation for Redundancy
and Premature Retirement) Regulations 2015
SI 2015/602 Public Service (Civil Servants and
Others) Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 2015
SI 2015/605 Working Tax Credit (Entitlement and
Maximum Rate) (Amendment) Regulations 2015
SI 2015/607 Social Security Contributions (Limited
Liability Partnership) (Amendment) Regulations 2015
SI 2015/609 Energy Performance of Buildings (England
and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2015
SI 2015/610 Plant Health (England) Order 2015
SI 2015/611 Firearms (Variation of Fees) Order
2015
SI 2015/618 Wildlife and Countryside (Registration,
Ringing and Marking of Certain Captive Birds) (England) Regulations
2015
SI 2015/623 National Savings Regulations 2015
SI 2015/624 National Savings (No. 2) Regulations
2015
SI 2015/625 Police Appeals Tribunals (Amendment)
Rules 2015
SI 2015/626 Police (Conduct) (Amendment) Regulations
2015
SI 2015/629 Merchant Shipping (Weighing of Goods
Vehicles and other Cargo) (Revocations) Regulations 2015
SI 2015/632 Government Resources and Accounts
Act 2000 (Estimates and Accounts) Order 2015
SI 2015/639 Environment and Rural Affairs (Miscellaneous
Revocations) Regulations 2015
SI 2015/642 Care and Support (Isles of Scilly)
Order 2015
SI 2015/643 Care Act 2014 (Consequential Amendments)
(Secondary Legislation) Order 2015
SI 2015/644 Care and Support (Miscellaneous Amendments)
Regulations 2015
SI 2015/645 Asylum Support (Amendment) Regulations
2015
SI 2015/646 Criminal Procedure (Amendment No.
2) Rules 2015
SI 2015/647 Sea Fish Licensing (England) Order
2015
SI 2015/648 Fishing Boats Designation (England)
Order 2015
SI 2015/657 Immigration (Passenger Transit Visa)
(Amendment) Order 2015
SI 2015/658 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (Alteration
of Coroner Areas) Order 2015
SI 2015/659 Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2015
SI 2015/660 Town and Country Planning (Environmental
Impact Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations 2015
SI 2015/661 Safety of Sports Grounds (Designation)
Order 2015
SI 2015/663 Water, Animals, Marine Pollution
and Environmental Protection (Miscellaneous Revocations) Order
2015
SI 2015/666 City of Birmingham (Scheme of Elections)
(Amendment) Order 2015
SI 2015/668 Nitrate Pollution Prevention Regulations
2015
SI 2015/669 Tax Credits (Claims and Notifications)
(Amendment) Regulations 2015
SI 2015/670 Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2)
Rules 2015
SI 2015/671 Pensions Increase (Review) Order
2015
SI 2015/675 Condensed Milk and Dried Milk (England)
Regulations 2015
SI 2015/681 British Nationality (General) (Amendment
No. 2) Regulations 2015
SI 2015/687 Family Proceedings Fees (Amendment)
Order 2015
SI 2015/694 Immigration (European Economic Area)
(Amendment) Regulations 2015
SI 2014/704 Misuse of Drugs (Designation) (England,
Wales and Scotland) Order 2015
Work of the Committee
in Session 2014-15
Section 5.01 Flow of Instruments
38. This report sets out a statistical summary
of the Committee's activity in the current session (2014-15) in
paragraphs 57 to 59 below. The rise in the number of Statutory
Instruments (SIs) laid has continued. In the first year of this
Parliament the Committee considered 721 instruments. Over subsequent
sessions that figure has slowly crept up, to 998 in session 2013-14
and 1153 in the current session, a level similar to that common
in the previous Parliament (see Chart 2). Within the overall total,
the proportion of affirmative instruments has increased significantly,
currently standing at 29%. The degree to which this is due to
the large number of correcting instruments is discussed in paragraphs
44 to 46 below.
39. While the Government's efforts to complete
unfinished business have boosted the laying of secondary legislation,
two other factors have made a small contribution to the general
increase. In evidence to our inquiry into Government consultation
practice,[14] the Rt
Hon Oliver Letwin MP, Minister for Government Policy in the Cabinet
Office, mentioned that part of the increase in the number of instruments
might have arisen from the Government's deregulation programme.
His Red Tape Challenge invited the public to identify obsolete
legislation: the removal of it from the statute book required
new statutory instruments to revoke the redundant legislation.
The second factor is the consideration of Treaties. Early in the
session we noted that Treaties made under section 20 of the Constitutional
Reform and Governance Act 2010, which are subject to a negative
procedure, were not being scrutinised elsewhere in the House.[15]
As our terms of reference include instruments,
not only Statutory Instruments, subject to parliamentary procedure,
these Treaties are within the scope of this Committee.
40. Nearly a quarter of all SIs laid this session
have come from the Home Office (13.2%) and the Ministry of Justice
(11.1%), and so immigration and courts reform has remained high
on the agenda. HM Treasury, and the Departments for Business,
Innovation and Skills, Health, and Transport have each produced
about 8% of SIs. Some of these SIs have been the most controversial
and have prompted a number of external representations, particularly
those relating to copyright (the Draft Copyright and Rights in
Performances (Personal Copies for Private Use) Regulations 2014
and related instruments) and the recent Draft Human Fertilisation
and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015. Such
submissions give the Committee a broader insight into the potential
effects of the legislation and we are grateful to those who have
taken the trouble to write to us. As well as reflecting in our
reports the issues raised in these submissions, we publish them
on our website so that the material is available to Parliament
as a whole.
(A) POOR PLANNING
41. In our last end of session Report we highlighted
our concern that Departments were not allowing sufficient time
for due process in Parliament before the date that an instrument
was intended to come into effect. We referred them to Government
guidance which says that they should allow a minimum of six sitting
weeks for all parliamentary stages to take place. From the start
of this session, we have reminded Departments of the need to take
into account the implications of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act
2011, namely that the session would end no later than 30 March
2015. Unfortunately these reminders to plan effectively appear
to have had little effect (see Chart 1): over 14% of the entire
session's SIs were laid in February and a further 13.7% in the
first two weeks of March.
42. At the end of January, there were more than
100 affirmative instruments in progress listed in the House of
Lords Business. At the end of February, there were 81, with new
and significant affirmative instruments still being laid (for
example, on standardised tobacco packaging and counter-terrorism).
43. This lack of planning has led to more requests
from Minsters for the Committee to accelerate its consideration
of instruments. But Departments need to bear in mind that a compressed
scrutiny period (or an ineffective scrutiny period such as when
an instrument is laid over the Christmas recess to come into effect
by the New Year) limits the time available to anyone who may wish
to make representations.[16]
The Committee will therefore only agree to accelerated consideration
where the Minister provides a clear and convincing argument for
expedition, such as public safety. If a Minister choses
to publicise a specific commencement date for legislation to come
into force, the responsibility lies with the Department to take
the necessary steps to lay the instruments sufficiently in advance
of that date.
(B) CORRECTIONS
44. Last year we also remarked on the larger
than usual number of correcting instruments, commenting that this
not only wasted the Committee's time but also increased the risk
of confusion amongst those required to comply with the law. Sadly
the trend has continued. We set out our findings for 2014 in our
report published in January 2015.[17]
We have received a positive response from the Government stating
their intention to address the points raised in the report by
means of a specialist team within Cabinet Office, "the Statutory
Instruments Hub". The letter is published in full at Appendix
3.
45. We welcome the Cabinet Office's intention
to improve the accuracy of Departments' drafting and hope that
the Hub will start work quickly. In 2014, 1051 instruments were
laid, of which 12.29% of affirmatives and 3.73% of negative instruments
were replaced, giving an overall correction rate of 6.18%. For
the first three months of 2015, the correction rate for the 446
instruments laid had increased to 7.62% (3.82% for negatives and
16.67% for affirmatives - see Chart 6). Given these figures,
the Hub may wish to turn its attention first to finding out why
so many affirmative instruments have required correction.
46. The higher than usual percentage of affirmatives
(29%) laid this session may in part be due to the large number
of corrections that have been needed. Many are due to drafting
errors in the legal text[18]
but a proportion continue to demonstrate process errors. For example,
HM Treasury laid two instruments relating to different policy
areas which both sought to insert a new section 53E into an existing
SI.[19] This clearly
illustrates a lack of overview by the Department in the handling
of its legislation.
(C) CONSULTATION
47. The Committee has always taken the view that
good quality public consultation at key stages in the development
of legislation is an important way of improving its accuracy and
effectiveness. Since the publication of the Consultation Principles
by the Cabinet Office in July 2012 we have been observing Departments'
practice more closely. We have published a number of reports on
this matter, most recently in January 2015.[20]
In evidence to us in December 2014, Mr Letwin appeared to take
some of our points on board. An interim response from the Government
to our January 2015 report has been received and is published
separately, in our 31st Report.[21]
48. A major concern to us was the absence of
monitoring within Government of the handling of consultations.
Such was the Committee's concern about this issue that, from the
start of this session, the grounds on which the Committee may
report instruments were extended to include a new ground, namely
that there "appear to be inadequacies in the consultation
process which relates to the instrument". We have used this
ground eight times during this session on the most egregious examples,
that is 9% of the total number reported. More often, we have either
requested supplementary information about the consultation or
asked for an Explanatory Memorandum (EM) to be replaced because
the summary of the consultation process and outcome contained
in it has been poor. There is the occasional glimmer of hope.
For example, we commended the draft Insolvency (Protection of
Essential Supplies) Order 2015, laid by the Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills, for a concise and complete commentary,
and also the summary in the draft Care and Support (Eligibility
Criteria) Regulations 2014, laid by the Department of Health,
but these remain the exception rather than the rule.
(D) IMPACT ASSESSMENT
49. Summaries of Impact Assessments (IAs) in
the EM are also being skimped over. The instruction published
on our website is that a hard copy should always be attached to
an SI - a web link is not enough - and that a brief summary of
the net effects of the legislation should be set out in the EM
as well. Some Departments appear to take the view that no information
is required if there are no costs to industry or voluntary bodies.
But costs within the public sector are also pertinent to the Committee's
consideration of whether the legislation is implementing the policy
appropriately or in the most effective way. A summary of outline
costs is helpful even when an IA is not required, such as, for
example, "only a dozen additional cases are expected as a
result of this legislation with administrative costs of about
£500 each to issue the licence."
50. We would also welcome greater clarity in
the IA about which options have been considered and rejected.
Although there is a specific section on the front page of the
IA for a brief summary of options considered, in our experience,
this tends to provide only the option being implemented by the
legislation and the status quo (the "do nothing"
option).
Section 5.02 Quality of EMs in general
51. A second new ground for reporting was also
introduced at the beginning of the session. This concerned the
quality of EMs. We have drawn nine (10.1%)
instruments to the attention of the House on the ground that "the
explanatory material laid in support provides insufficient information
to gain a clear understanding about the instrument's policy objective
and intended implementation."
52. Of necessity, Departments have to be selective
in deciding what material to include in EMs, but they need to
avoid giving the impression that they have deliberately omitted
information that might call into question the policy objective
promoted by an instrument. During this session, the Department
for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) laid several instruments
requiring local authorities to publish information about their
activities. These included the draft Local Government (Transparency)
(Descriptions of Information) (England) Order 2014. Its EM failed
to give an accurate account of the balance of opinion in responses
to all the consultation exercises, and we stressed the need for
Departments to ensure that summaries in EMs did not omit important
details. DCLG subsequently laid the Local Government (Transparency
Requirements) (England) Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/2680) which
we drew to the attention of the House on the ground of policy
interest. We noted that the Department was unable to say how many
consultation respondents supported or opposed the publication
of certain categories of information, and we said that this "left
the impression of a Department which did not wish to allow its
intentions to be swayed by serious consideration of responses".[22]
Near the end of the session, DCLG laid the Local Government (Transparency
Requirements) (England) Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/480), adding
to the requirements on local authorities. We also drew this instrument
to the attention of the House, commenting that the Department
had signally failed to provide accurate and reliable information
in support of the Regulations.[23]
53. If an EM is deficient, we have the additional
recourse of asking Departments to re-lay the EM with the corrected
or additional information that we felt was necessary to understand
the policy intent. This has the advantage of ensuring that any
reader can access the correct information from the Legislation.gov.uk
website without having to cross-check against this Committee's
reports. In this session, we have asked for 46 EMs to be replaced.
Besides omissions and inaccuracies, common faults include failing
to explain the context and, instead, expecting the reader to follow
a web link to look through extensive material, White Papers or
"government strategies", to pick out the small section
that is relevant to the particular instrument. Similarly, the
material that will follow the legislation, such as guidance or
instructions to officials, needs to be available and properly
summarised in order to enable the Committee to assess whether
the implementation of the policy proposed will be fully effective.
(A) ANALYSIS OF GROUNDS FOR REPORT
54. In 2013-14 we reported on 59 SIs (5.9%) out
of a total of 998. For this session, the figures are 89 (7.7%)
out of 1153. Although this appears a higher rate of reporting,
the outcome is distorted by a single report on a group of 17 instruments
arising from the Care Act 2014.[24]
If the figure is adjusted to
take account of that, the reporting rate is 6.3%: very close to
the level for the previous session.
55. Although the rate of reporting has remained
much the same, there has been some change in which grounds are
chosen as the basis for reporting. 17 SIs have been reported in
this session on the new grounds of poor information or inadequate
consultation, and fewer have been reported than last session on
the ground that they may imperfectly achieve their objective (six
(6.7%) in 2014-15 as opposed to 13 (22%) in 2013-14). The new
grounds for reporting allow the Committee to highlight administrative
defects in the preparation and procedures associated with an instrument.
Now that these grounds for reporting are available to the Committee,
a report concluding that an instrument may imperfectly achieve
its policy objective may be seen as a much stronger criticism.
Members of the House and Departments may wish to bear this in
mind when reading future reports.
Section 5.03 Public Bodies Orders
56. Only four Orders were laid in this session
under the Public Bodies Act 2011. Just one caused us particular
concern, the draft Public Bodies (Abolition of the Library Advisory
Council for England) Order 2014[25],
which raised issues about its timing: the Order was laid shortly
in advance of publication of the outcome of a significant review
into Public Library provision and we felt it premature to clear
the Order before the recommendations of that review were known.
From the indications in the Government response to our last annual
review of Public Bodies Orders,[26]
we very much doubt whether any more of these Orders will be put
forward for our consideration.
Section 5.04 Statistical Analysis
57. We met 28 times in session 2014-15 and published
33 reports on a total of 1153 instruments (340
affirmatives, 808 negatives, and 5 Public Bodies Orders). We drew
44 affirmatives and 45 negatives to the special attention of the
House: a reporting rate of 12.9% for affirmatives and 5.5% for
negative instruments. We held two evidence sessions, and have
published a number of written submissions from members of the
public and organisations which have greatly broadened our understanding
of the impact of the SIs.
58. We have drawn 89 instruments (that is 7.7%
of the total number considered) to the special attention of the
House in this session as follows:
· 68
instruments (76.4%) on the ground of political importance or public
policy interest;
· 6 (6.7%)
on the ground that the explanatory material laid in support provides
insufficient information;
· 3 (3.4%)
on the grounds of imperfectly achieving its policy objective;
· 4 (4.5%)
on the ground that there appear to be inadequacies in the consultation
process;
· 3 (3.4%)
on the ground of public policy interest and inadequacies in the
consultation process;
· 2 (2.2%)
on the grounds of imperfectly achieving its policy objective and
that the explanatory material laid in support provides insufficient
information;
· 1 (1.1%)
on the ground of inappropriately implementing European Union legislation;
· 1 (1.1%)
on the grounds of being inappropriate in view of changed circumstances
since the enactment of the parent Act and that the explanatory
material laid in support provides insufficient information;
· 1 (1.1%)
on the grounds of imperfectly achieving its policy objective and
that there appear to be inadequacies in the consultation process;
59. In deciding which instruments to draw to
the special attention of the House, we have continued to limit
our reports to those on which we believe the House may wish to
take action. In order to alert Members to other instruments which
appear to be of interest, are topical or follow an unusual process,
we have continued to include in our reports short information
paragraphs on instruments. In this session, we included 149 such
paragraphs (covering 206 (17.9%) of the total instruments), compared
to 184 last session (covering 238 (24%) of the total instruments).
See Chart 4.
Chart 1 - Number of
instruments laid by month in session 2014-15
Chart 2 - Number of
instruments laid each calendar year since 2005
Chart 3 - Number of instruments
reported on and the ground for reporting
DEPARTMENT
| TOTAL | REPORTED NEGATIVE
| REPORTED AFFIRMATIVE
| a | b
| c | d
| e | f
| a & d | a & f
| b & e | d & e
| d & f | PBO 40
| PBO 60 |
Cabinet Office |
27 | 1
| 0 | 1
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
|
DCLG | 75
| 3 | 4
| 3 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 2 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 1 | 0
| 1 | 0
| 0 |
DCMS | 26
| 1 | 0
| 1 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 1 |
DEFRA | 72
| 3 | 2
| 2 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 2
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 4
| 0 |
BIS | 91
| 1 | 1
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 2
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 1
| 0 | 0
| 0 |
DECC | 70
| 3 | 14
| 17 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 |
DWP* | 80
| 3 | 3
| 3 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 3 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 |
Education | 57
| 6 | 3
| 5 | 0
| 0 | 2
| 0 | 1
| 0 | 1
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 |
FCO | 32
| 1 | 0
| 1 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 |
Health** | 95
| 17 | 7
| 24 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 |
Home Office | 152
| 2 | 7
| 7 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 1 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 1
| 0 | 0
| 0 |
Defence | 15
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 |
Justice | 128
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 |
NI Office | 3
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 |
Privy Council | 2
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 |
Scotland | 21
| 0 | 1
| 1 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 |
Transport | 91
| 1 | 1
| 0 | 0
| 1 | 1
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 |
HMRC | 13
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 |
Treasury | 101
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 |
Wales | 2
| 0 | 1
| 1 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 |
TOTALS | 1153
| 45 | 44
| 68 | 0
| 1 | 3
| 6 | 4
| 0 | 3
| 1 | 2
| 1 | 4
| 1 |
Chart 4 - Percentage of
statutory instruments that were the subject of short paragraphs
compared with the last four sessions
Chart 5: Correction rates
for Session 2014-15
Sis
| Number laid | Number of SIs replaced by correction
| Percentage |
Affirmative | 340
| 44 | 12.9
|
Negative | 808
| 27 | 3.34
|
Total | 1148*
| 71 | 6.15
|
· Does
not include the 5 PBOs
Chart 6: Correction rates
for 2015 to end of session
SIs
| Number laid | Number of SIs replaced by correction
| Percentage |
Affirmative | 132
| 22 | 16.67
|
Negative | 314
| 12 | 3.82
|
Total | 446
| 34 | 7.62
|
1 HL Paper 133. Back
2
Section 93(1) of the 2003 Act. Back
3
HL Paper 7. Back
4
SSAC Members concluded that its recent report on the Housing Benefit
(Habitual Residence) Amendment Regulations 2014 (published in
November 2014) dealt with similar and related issues and that
further public consultation was unlikely to produce any significant
amount of additional evidence at this stage. Back
5
Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 25th November 2009 on the taking up and pursuit of the business
of insurance and reinsurance (Solvency II). Back
6
HL WS341. Back
7
We published information about SI 2014/2848 in our 13th Report
of this Session (HL Paper 64). Back
8
Advanced copies of the guidance as annexes can be seen on:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/circular-0062015-changes-to-home-office-guidance-on-police-misconduct-unsatisfactory-performance-and-attendance-management-procedures
A consolidated version will be issued on 1 May when the regulations
come into force. Back
9
HL WS 200. Back
10
In our 7th Report of Session 2012-13 (HL Paper 32), we reported
on the draft Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012,
made under the Localism Act 2011. Those Regulations provided for
the introduction of the Assets Scheme, requiring a local authority
to maintain a list of buildings and other land in its area which
were of community value. Back
11
The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)
Order 1995 ("the General Permitted Development Order":
SI 1995/418). Back
12
See:https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/birmingham-city-councils-governance-and-organisational-capabilities-an-independent-review Back
13
HL Deb, 16 March 2015: Column 963. Back
14
Oral evidence page 15 Back
15
3rd Report, session 2014-15 (HL Paper 12) Back
16
See for example correspondence on Maternity Allowance (Curtailment)
Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/3053), and Statutory Maternity Pay and
Statutory Adoption Pay (Curtailment) Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/3054)
in our 18th Report of this session (HL Paper 76). Back
17
Number of Corrections to Statutory Instruments in 2014 20th Report,
Session 2014-15 (HL Paper 93). Back
18
For example, the Elections (Policy Development Grants Scheme)
(Amendment) (No 2) Order 2015 (SI 2015/ 302) which revoked and
replaced the Elections (Policy Development Grants Scheme) (Amendment)
Order 2015 ((SI 2015/ 302) laid a few days earlier. See our 27th Report
of this Session (HL Paper 120). Back
19
Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities)
(Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2015 and the Draft Mortgage Credit Directive
Order 2015. Each sought to insert a new article 53E and 54(1)(b)(vi)
into the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities)
Order 2001. Back
20
Inquiry into Government Consultation Practice, 22nd Report of
Session 2014-15 (HL Paper 98). Back
21
HL Paper 147 Back
22
11th Report, see para 22. Back
23
See our 6th, 11th and 30th Reports of this session, (HL Papers
27, 55 and 142). Back
24
See our 14th Report of this session (HL Paper 66). Back
25
See our 15th and 21st Reports of this session, (HL Papers 68 &
94). Back
26
17th Report Special Report Public Bodies Act 2011: three years
on (HL Paper 73). Back
|