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 Department
of Trade and Industry in connection with the Export of Goods (Control)
(Amendment No. 2) Order 2000 (S.I. 2000/1239) is printed
in Appendix 1.
3. The Committee draws the special
attention of both Houses to this Order on the ground that it is
4. This Order is made
by the Secretary of State under the powers in section 124A of
the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (inserted by section 272
of the Greater London Authority Act 1999) to designate roads or
proposed roads which are to be GLA side roads. The Order designates
a stretch of road in the London Borough of Bexley as such as road,
without any measurement of distance.
5. The Committee asked
the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions why
article 2 and the title to the Schedule refer to "roads"
in the plural and article 2(3) explains the abbreviation for metres,
given that the schedule to the order designates only one road,
without any measurement of distance. In the memorandum printed
in Appendix 2, the Department explains that this Order is one
of a series of instruments all the others of which designate several
roads and that for consistency of the orders a common form framed
in the plural was adopted. The abbreviation for metres was included
by oversight. The Committee, whilst accepting that the legal effect
of this Order is not affected, deprecates the preparation of a
large number of regulations in such a way as to ignore important
distinctions between them: statutory instruments are unique pieces
of legislation and should be drafted with appropriate precision.
The Committee accordingly reports the order for defective drafting.
2000 (S.I. 2000/1297)
6. The Committee draws
the special attention of both Houses to these regulations on the
ground that they make an unexpected use of the power in section
2 of the European Communities Act 1972.
7. These regulations specify
requirements which must be satisfied before an undertaking given
by a water company may be accepted by the relevant enforcement
authority under section 19(1)(b) of the Water Industry Act 1991,
for the purposes of ensuring compliance with requirements of Directive
80/778/EEC (the Drinking Water Directive) (regulation 2). The
regulations concern action to be taken following water contamination
and are made to ensure United Kingdom compliance with the judgment
of the European Court of Justice in Case C-340/96, Commission
v. United Kingdom  ECR I-2023. The Committee asked the
Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions to identify
the provision in the regulations (or elsewhere, if it appears
elsewhere) which gives effect to the Judgment of the European
Court, so far as it calls for the relevant undertakings to include
"where appropriate, the information to be given to the population
8. Paragraph 29 of the
judgement of the European Court requires publicity to be given
when an undertaking is accepted by an enforcement authority. In
the memorandum printed in Appendix 3, the Department contends
that the Water Industry Act 1991 already deals with the matter
of notification of those affected by water contamination. It is
pointed out, firstly, that section 19(3)(b) of the 1991 Act requires
the Secretary of State to tell the relevant population groups
that he has accepted the undertaking. The Department points out,
secondly, that section 195 enables the public to inspect and obtain
copies of undertakings registered in the register kept under that
section. The Committee does not, however, accept that these two
provisions amount to an adequate interpretation of a Community
obligation to include in water companies' undertakings an explanation
of the steps which will be taken to give appropriate information
to the affected population groups. That positive obligation is
not satisfied by the Secretary of State informing them that he
has accepted an undertaking and by (passively) making information
available to those who actually seek it out. The Committee accordingly
reports this instrument for inadequate implementation of the judgement
which it purports to enforce.
2000 (S.I. 2000/1315)
9. The Committee draws
the special attention of both Houses to these regulations on the
ground that they are defectively drafted.
10. These regulations
implement Directive 98/79/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council on in vitro diagnostic medical devices. The
Committee asked the Department of Health to explain the intention
of the regulations regarding enforcement notices. An enforcement
notice as respects a device authorised to be served under regulation
19(1) must specify the relevant provision "of these regulations",
require the recipient of the notice to ensure that the device
conforms with the specified provision and may specify measures
to be taken to secure compliance with the provisions of the regulations.
In the case of a relevant device within regulation 4, the Committee
asked the Department to explain whether the provision to be specified
in the enforcement notice will be regulation 4(1) [or (2)], that
is, the restriction on placing on the market or the technical
requirement identifying it (which is found in Annex 1 of the Directive).
If the Department argued that it was the latter case, the Committee
wished to know how the specified Annex requirement could be deemed
to fall within the quoted words of regulation 19(1).
11. In the memorandum
printed in Appendix 4, the Department states that their practice
would be to refer in one part of the notice to the relevant provision
of the regulations including elsewhere in the notice a reference
to the relevant annex requirements. The Department however concedes
that clarification of the procedure in amending regulations would
necessitate the inclusion of reference to the Annex in enforcement
notices by adding the words "(and, where applicable, of the
Directive)" to paragraph 19(1)(c) of these regulations. The
Committee accordingly reports these regulations for defective
drafting, acknowledged by the Department.
2000 (S.I. 2000/1298)
12. The Committee draws
the special attention of both Houses to this order on the ground
that it is defectively drafted.
13. This order amends
the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) Order
1974 (the 1974 Order) and the Pet Travel Scheme (Pilot Arrangements)
(England) Order 1999. The Committee asked the Ministry of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food to explain a reference in article 4(2B) of
the 1974 Order as inserted by article 2(3) of this instrument.
It refers to the new requirement for a delay of six months between
the taking of a blood sample from, and the importation of, an
animal. This is stated to be a requirement under sub-paragraph
(c) of paragraph (2A). The Committee suggested to the Department
that the reference should be to sub-paragraph (d) of that provision.
14. In the memorandum
printed in Appendix 5, the Department acknowledges that the reference
should be to sub-paragraph (d) rather than sub-paragraph (c).
The error has already been corrected by means of a further order,
the Pets Travel Scheme (Pilot Arrangements) (England) (Amendment)
(No. 2) Order 2000. Both this and S.I. 2000/1298 came into force
on 5th June 2000. The Committee accordingly reports the order
for defective drafting, acknowledged by the Department
1 The Orders of Reference of the Committee are set
out in the First Report, Session 1999-2000 (HL Paper 4; HC 47-i). Back