Memorandum from the Department of Trade
REGULATIONS 2003 (S.I. 2003/74)
1. The Joint Committee has requested a memorandum
in relation to the above Regulations on the points set out below.
(1) Explain why regulation 3(1) defines "CEPT"
and "erp", given that these expressions are not used
elsewhere in the Regulations.
2. These definitions should not have been included
in the Regulations which consolidate, with amendments, earlier
regulations in respect of which the definitions were required,
and the Department apologises for this error. They will be omitted
when the Regulations are amended (licence exemption amending regulations
are usually made not less than annually).
(2) Explain why regulation 3(2) provides for "public
telecommunication system" to be construed in accordance with
section 9(1) of the 1984 Act, given that this expression is not
used elsewhere in the Regulations.
3. This should not have been provided as it is no
longer required and will be omitted when the Regulations are amended,
as mentioned in relation to a similar point in paragraph 2 above.
(3) Regulation 5(1) provides that the exemption
provided in regulation 4(1) (exemption for the relevant apparatus
from the requirement to be licensed) shall be subject to the term
that [(b)] the use of the relevant apparatus is terrestrial use
only, unless otherwise stated in Schedule 6.
Explain the inclusion of the underlined words, given that no such
contrary statement appears in Schedule 6 itself.
4. Schedule 6 to the Regulations, which covers short
range devices, includes certain airborne devices. "Prescribed
apparatus" within Schedule 6 is described in the relevant
Interface Requirement referred to in Schedule 6 rather than, as
in the earlier licence exemption regulations which these Regulations
consolidate, in the Schedule itself. It would be more appropriate
to refer to "provided under" rather than "stated
in" and this will be dealt with when the Regulations are
(4) Explain why Part I of Schedule 4 contains
a definition of "data message", given that this expression
is not used elsewhere in that Schedule.
5. The definition should not have been included as
it is no longer required and will be omitted when the Regulations
are amended, as mentioned in relation to a similar point in paragraph
14 February 2003