Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008/1085)

1.1 The Committee draws the special attention of both Houses to these Regulations on the grounds that their format is unsatisfactory and they are defectively drafted in one respect.

1.2 In the printed version of this instrument, the indentation of the numbered divisions within the regulations is incorrect, so that in several regulations each numbered paragraph other than the first ((2), (3) (4) etc.) is indented further than any lettered or numbered sub-divisions within that paragraph ((a), (b) (c), and (i), (ii) (iii) etc.). The effect of this is that it is much more difficult for the reader to identify at a glance where each paragraph begins or to find a specific numbered provision.

1.3 In a memorandum printed at the Appendix, the Department for Communities and Local Government states that the indentations were applied by the new Version 6.0 of the Statutory Instrument Template, and that the HTML version on the OPSI website does not appear to contain any of the unusual indentations. The Department has raised the problem with the Stationery Office and will inform the Committee of any developments, but does not propose to take any further steps in respect of this instrument, as it is likely that most users of the Regulations will access them via the OPSI website or other commercial publications.

1.4 The Committee notes the Department's response, but observes that the PDF version of the Regulations on the OPSI website, being a true facsimile of the printed instrument, does contain the incorrect indentations, and that it is this version which is likely to be used by anyone wishing to print a copy of it. The Committee also notes that it has not seen the same problem arise with other recent instruments, many of which are likely to have been produced using the same new version of the template. It is unsatisfactory for an instrument to be published in such a form, and the Committee would have expected the Department to have raised the problem with the Stationery Office before the instrument was made (there does not appear to have been any pressing need for the Regulations to come into force quickly). The Committee accordingly reports these Regulations for being in an unsatisfactory format.

1.5 Regulation 5(1) deals with appointments of independent members to a local authority's standards committee. It provides that a person may only be appointed as an independent member if the appointment is (a) approved by a majority of the members of the authority; (b) advertised in one or more newspapers circulating in the area of the authority, and in such other publications or websites as the authority considers appropriate; (c) of a person who submitted an application to the authority.

1.6 In the context of sub-paragraphs (a) and (c), "the appointment" clearly means the act of appointing a person as an independent member. The Committee was unsure whether, in view of this, sub-paragraph (b) was intended to require the authority to publish an advertisement stating that a named person had been appointed or whether, as it thought more likely, it was intended to require the authority to advertise the fact that applications were invited from people wishing to be appointed as an independent member.

1.7 The Department does not state with any clarity what the intended meaning is. It submits that "appointment" bears the same meaning when read in conjunction with each sub-paragraph. It goes on to add, however, that the Standards Board for England has issued guidance to local authorities, which makes clear that the position of independent member must be advertised in at least one newspaper circulation in the area before an appointment as independent member may be made. That guidance purports to explain the requirements of these Regulations, so it would appear that regulation 5(1)(b) was intended to require this.

1.8 The Department acknowledges that "it might be more helpful to the reader if it were made clearer what it is that has to be advertised". The Committee would put it more strongly that that: requirements in legislation should not be obscured by the use, in the governing introductory wording of a provision, of a term that appears to change its meaning when applied to different indents within the provision in question. Regulation 5(1) is insufficiently clear, and accordingly the Committee reports it for defective drafting, acknowledged to a certain extent by the Department.