Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments Twenty-Ninth Report


TWENTY-NINTH REPORT

FROM THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF BOTH HOUSES APPOINTED TO SCRUTINISE STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, ETC.[1]

ORDERED TO REPORT:

  1. The Committee has considered the instruments set out in the Annex to this Report and has determined that the special attention of both Houses does not require to be drawn to any of them.

  2. A memorandum by the Lord Chancellor's Department in connection with the Public Record Office (Fees) Regulations 1998 (S.I. 1998/599) is printed in Appendix I to this Report.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1994 (SUSPENSION OF CUSTODY OFFICER CERTIFICATE) REGULATIONS 1998 (S.I. 1998/474)

  3. The Committee draws the special attention of both Houses to these Regulations on the ground that they are defectively drafted.

  Paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 provides that, in prescribed circumstances, an escort monitor may suspend a Custody Officer Certificate. Regulation 2(a)(i) of the present Regulations prescribes one such circumstance: where "an allegation has been made against a custody officer". The Committee asked the Home Office to explain what sort of "allegation" is intended to be covered by this provision. The Department reply, in the memorandum printed in Appendix II, that "allegation" is intended to cover "any misconduct or abuse of position by officers". The Committee considers that, given the sanction which attaches to this provision, this should have been spelt out in the regulation itself. The Committee reports regulation 2(a)(i) for defective drafting.

KENT COUNTY COUNCIL (BOROUGH OF GILLINGHAM AND CITY OF ROCHESTER UPON MEDWAY) (STAFF TRANSFER) ORDER 1998 (S.I. 1998/449)

  4. The Committee draws the special attention of both Houses to this Order on the ground that it is defectively drafted.

  Article 3(2) has a sub-paragraph (a), but no other sub-paragraph. The Committee asked the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions whether any text had been omitted from the article, and, if the text is complete, to explain the purpose of the words "in the case of an employee whose name is mentioned in, or who falls within a class or description of employees mentioned in any section of Part I, Part II or Part III of the designated list", which did not seem to add anything to the provision. The Department reply in the memorandum printed in Appendix III that the inclusion of the single sub-paragraph is the result of an omission to make the necessary formatting change following changes in the content of article 3. As regards the quoted words the Department concede that the same changes of content have rendered them unnecessary. In the view of the Committee they are also misleading as suggesting the existence of other classes of employees. The Committee reports article 3(2) for defective drafting, acknowledged by the Department.


1  
The Orders of Reference of the Committee are set out in the First Report, Session 1997-98 (HL Paper 4; HC 33-i). Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 1998
Prepared 27 April 1998