1.We found that the Explanatory Memorandum (EM) originally provided with this instrument was too legal and technical and omitted any explanation of why the relaxations proposed would not reduce security at airports. When we asked a number of basic questions, however, the Department for Transport’s (DfT) responses made the policy intent and consequences clear. Rather than draw another DfT instrument to the attention of the House on the ground of inadequate explanation, we chose instead to write to the Minister, Robert Courts MP, asking for the EM to be re-written to include this supplementary information.
2.A revised EM has been published and Mr Courts’ response, at Appendix 1, explains the measures currently being taken within the Department to improve the general quality of the secondary legislation it lays before Parliament. We are grateful to the Minister for the steps he is taking in this area, and look forward to seeing the benefits soon.
3.In our 1st Report of this session,1 we drew attention to the new amendment to the Highway Code which sets out the responsibilities of drivers using self-driving vehicles. As on previous occasions, we stressed the importance of any changes to the Highway Code and its reprinting being closely coordinated. The Minister, Baroness Vere of Norbiton, has responded. In a letter published in Appendix 2, she explains the publication processes for the Code. We regret, however, that she does not fully acknowledge the principle that the law must be consistent across all formats, and that it creates an inequality if those who do not have access to a computer can only see a version of the law that is months out of date. Changes to the Highway Code apply to every member of the public and every member of the public should be able to access an accurate statement of the law that currently applies.
1 Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, 1st Report (Session 2022–23, HL Paper 4).