HOUSE OF LORDS

Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee

4th Report of Session 2007-08

Drawing special attention to: Draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2007

Ordered to be printed 4 December and published 6 December 2007

London : The Stationery Office Limited £price

HL Paper 19 The Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments The Committee has the following terms of reference: (1) The Committee shall, subject to the exceptions in paragraph (2), consider— (a) every instrument (whether or not a statutory instrument), or draft of an instrument, which is laid before each House of Parliament and upon which proceedings may be, or might have been, taken in either House of Parliament under an ; (b) every proposal which is in the form of a draft of such an instrument and is laid before each House of Parliament under an Act of Parliament, with a view to determining whether or not the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the grounds specified in paragraph (3). (2) The exceptions are— (a) remedial orders, and draft remedial orders, under section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998; (b) draft orders under sections 14 and 18 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, and subordinate provisions orders made or proposed to be made under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001; (c) Measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made, and drafts of instruments to be made, under them. (3) The grounds on which an instrument, draft or proposal may be drawn to the special attention of the House are— (a) that it is politically or legally important or gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House; (b) that it may be inappropriate in view of changed circumstances since the enactment of the parent Act; (c) that it may inappropriately implement European Union legislation; (d) that it may imperfectly achieve its policy objectives. (4) The Committee shall also consider such other general matters relating to the effective scrutiny of the merits of statutory instruments and arising from the performance of its functions under paragraphs (1) to (3) as the Committee considers appropriate, except matters within the orders of reference of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

Members The members of the Committee are: Rt Hon. the Baroness Butler-Sloss GBE The Baroness Kingsmill CBE The Lord Crisp KCB The Lord Lucas The Baroness Deech DBE The Baroness Maddock The Viscount Eccles CBE The Baroness Thomas of Winchester The Lord Filkin CBE (Chairman) The Lord Tunnicliffe CBE The Lord James of Blackheath CBE

Registered interests Members’ registered interests may be examined in the online Register of Lords’ Interests at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldreg.htm. The Register may also be inspected in the House of Lords Record Office and is available for purchase from the Stationery Office.

Publications The Committee’s Reports are published by the Stationery Office by Order of the House. All of the Committee’s publications are also at: www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/merits.cfm

Contacts If you have a query about the Committee or its work, please contact the Clerk of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, Delegated Legislation Office, House of Lords, London SW1A 0PW; telephone 020-7219 8821; facsimile 020-7219 2571; email [email protected]. The Committee’s website, www.parliament.uk, has guidance for the public on how to contact the Committee if you have a concern or opinion about any new item of secondary legislation.

Fourth Report

INSTRUMENT DRAWN TO THE SPECIAL ATTENTION OF THE HOUSE The Committee have considered the following instrument and have determined that the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on the ground specified.

Draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2007 Summary: This Order performs two functions: first, it simplifies the Home Office’s powers to set fees for immigration and nationality applications and it secondly extends the range of applications and processes for which fees are to be paid. New powers are included to charge fees for biometric identity cards, which will be compulsory for certain migrants under section 5 of the UK Borders Act 2007. In addition, the instrument allows the Home Office to charge for sponsorship licences under the evolving Points-Based System for immigration. A future instrument will set the fees themselves. In seeking the agreement of the House to this instrument, the Government may wish to take the opportunity to provide further information about the Points-Based System and sponsorship proposals to which these fees will relate. This Order is drawn to the special attention of the House on the ground that it gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House. 1. The Home Office have laid this Order under section 52(4)(b) of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 together with an Explanatory Memorandum (EM). To understand its intentions and effects, the Order should be read alongside “Sponsorship under the Points Based system: Statement of Intent” which was published by the Border and Immigration Agency on 22 November.1 2. The Order performs two functions: it simplifies the Home Office’s powers to set fees for immigration and nationality applications and it extends the range of applications and processes for which fees are to be paid. The primary legislation allows the Secretary of State to set fees which exceed the administrative cost of determining the application2 and the EM says that the principle which will underline the fees is that “those who benefit most from the immigration system should pay proportionately more towards the true end to end costs of the system” (paragraph 7.2). A future instrument will set the fees themselves. 3. New powers are included to charge fees for biometric identity cards, which will be compulsory for certain migrants under section 5 of the UK Borders Act 2007. In addition, the instrument allows the Home Office to charge for sponsorship licences under the evolving Points-Based System for immigration. Migrants coming to work in the UK under the highly skilled

1 http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/6353//saboutusponsorshippointsbasedsystem.pdf 2 Section 42(1) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004 as amended by section 52(7) of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006.

2 MERITS OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS COMMITTEE

Tier of the Points-Based System (Tier One), or who are visiting the UK, will not need a sponsor, but most others will. 4. Once licensed, sponsors will be able to issue certificates of sponsorship to the migrants whom they wish to be in the UK, and these certificates will form an essential (but not conclusive) part of the migrants’ visa application, or permission to remain in the UK. 5. The EM explains that all licensed sponsors will be rated A or B and fees charged accordingly. Sponsors who fully comply with their obligations (or, where the sponsor is registering for the first time, those that the Home Office believe will fully comply) will be A-rated. Those who do not, but whose actual or prospective non-compliance is not deemed serious enough to justify an immediate refusal, are likely to be B-rated. Paragraph 7.9 of the EM states: “An example of where we could B-rate might be where the sponsor has a record of poor compliance with the current Work Permit system, or if its internal communications are not good enough for it to be able to tell us when a migrant has turned up for work. A B-rating is also likely to be awarded if a sponsor receives a Civil Penalty under the illegal working provisions of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, when these are commenced. The Border and Immigration Agency will publish detailed guidance on this which will appear on its website when it starts accepting applications for sponsor licences.” 6. In seeking the agreement of the House to this instrument, the Government may wish to take the opportunity to provide further information about the Points-Based System and sponsorship proposals to which these fees will relate.

OTHER INSTRUMENTS OF INTEREST

Draft Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board Order 2007 7. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) have laid the draft Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board Order 2007, which abolishes the existing five statutory levy boards (the British Potato Council, Home-Grown Cereals Authority, Horticultural Development Council, Milk Development Council, and the Meat and Livestock Commission) and creates a new levy board, the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. The explanatory material provided to accompany the draft Order makes it clear that the horticultural sector have voiced significant opposition to the proposed re-structuring in responding to DEFRA’s consultation process. We asked DEFRA to clarify the position, and have received additional information printed at Appendix 1. We regret that the Order was considered by the House before we were able to consider the instrument and publish this material.

European Qualifications (Health and Social Care Professions) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/3101) 8. The Department of Health (DH) have laid the European Qualifications (Health and Social Care Professions) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/3101). The Regulations transpose into domestic legislation European Directive 2005/36/EC (“the Directive”) on the recognition of professional

MERITS OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS COMMITTEE 3

qualifications, in respect of health and social care professions in the UK. They allow for the provision of temporary services in the UK by migrant professionals from other Member States. While the regime concerning temporary provision of services already exists for the professions of doctor, dentist, nurse and midwife, these Regulations extend the regime to all other health and social care professions, namely pharmacists, opticians, osteopaths, chiropractors, social workers, professions complementary to dentistry, certain specialist nurses and those professions regulated by the Health Professions Council. DH acknowledge that, in responding to consultation on these proposals, the relevant regulatory bodies had concerns relating to temporary services, that bore upon about patient safety, and the Department have made changes in the light of consultation. However, whilst recognising concerns that unscrupulous European migrants could use the new provisions of the Directive to avoid permanent registration, DH have stressed that they do not see that these individuals pose any more threat to patients than permanent registrants. We obtained further information from the Department about the negotiation of the Directive, and about how UK regulators would in practice check documentary evidence presented by migrant professionals: that information is printed at Appendix 2.

Draft Immigration (Employment of Adults subject to Immigration Control) (Maximum Penalty) Order 2007 and the Immigration (Restrictions on Employment) Order 2007 (SI 2007/3290) 9. The Immigration (Restrictions on Employment) Order 2007 (SI 2007/3290) sets out measures to tackle illegal migrant working, including: • a system of civil penalties for employers who employ illegal migrant workers; and • a continuing responsibility for employers of migrant workers with a time-limited immigration status to check their ongoing entitlement to work in the . 10. The new measures do not significantly alter employers’ existing responsibilities but impose tougher penalties. The draft Immigration (Employment of Adults subject to Immigration Control) (Maximum Penalty) Order 2007 proposes that the maximum civil penalty will be £10,000 per illegal worker. The level of penalty will be assessed by the Border and Immigration Agency, objections to the level set can be made to the Home Secretary, appeals against the penalty to the courts. Two draft codes have also been laid: • one, made under section 19 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, specifies the factors that may be considered when determining the level of penalty that should be imposed on employers of illegal migrant workers;3 • the other, made under Section 23 of the 2006 Act, provides guidance to employers on how to avoid a civil penalty for employing an illegal

3 Draft Code of Practice: Prevention of Illegal Working: Civil penalties for employers http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/6353/18383/18469/civilpenaltiescode_nov07.pdf

4 MERITS OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS COMMITTEE

migrant worker, in a way that avoids contravening race relations legislation.4

Reinsurance Directive Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/3253); Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Reinsurance Directive) Order 2007 (SI 2007/3254); and Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Reinsurance Directive) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/3255) 11. HM Treasury have laid these instruments. They serve to complete implementation of the EC Reinsurance Directive (Directive 2005/68/EC), provide for the single passport and make some changes concerning domestic requirements for notification of transfers of reinsurance business. Because no information about the consultation process had been provided in the Explanatory Memorandum, we obtained further advice from HM Treasury which is printed at Appendix 3.

Secretaries of State for Children, Schools and Families, for Innovation, Universities and Skills and for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Order 2007 (SI 2007/3224) 12. The Explanatory Memorandum (EM) to this Order states that, on 28 June 2007, the Prime Minister announced a series of changes to the machinery of government, including the appointments of a Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, a Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, and a Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, each in charge of departments of the same name. As a result, the Departments for Education and Skills and for Trade and Industry have ceased to exist. The EM sets out the division of policy responsibilities between the new Departments, especially at paragraphs 7.2 to 7.5.

INSTRUMENTS NOT DRAWN TO THE SPECIAL ATTENTION OF THE HOUSE The Committee have considered the instruments set out below and have determined that the special attention of the House need not be drawn to them.

Draft Instruments requiring affirmative approval Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board Order 2007 Immigration (Employment of Adults Subject to Immigration Control) (Maximum Penalty) Order 2007

Instruments subject to annulment SI 2007/3101 European Qualifications (Health and Social Care Professions) Regulations 2007 SI 2007/3205 Harbour School Order 2007

4 Draft Code of Practice: Prevention of Illegal Working: Guidance for employers on the avoidance of unlawful discrimination in employment practice while seeking to prevent illegal working http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/6353/18383/18469/antidiscriminationcode_nov07.pdf

MERITS OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS COMMITTEE 5

SI 2007/3224 Secretaries of State for Children, Schools and Families, for Innovation, Universities and Skills and for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Order 2007 SI 2007/3253 Reinsurance Directive Regulations 2007 SI 2007/3254 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Reinsurance Directive) Order 2007 SI 2007/3255 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Reinsurance Directive) Regulations 2007 SI 2007/3276 Town and Country Planning (Regions) (New Forest National Park) (England) Order 2007 SI 2007/3280 National Health Service (Pension Scheme, Injury Benefits, Additional Voluntary Contributions and Compensation for Premature Retirement) Amendment Regulations 2007 SI 2007/3282 Medicines (Pharmacies) (Applications for Registration and Fees) Amendment Regulations 2007 SI 2007/3284 Grants for Fishing and Aquaculture Industries Regulations 2007 SI 2007/3287 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Business in the Regulated Sector and Supervisory Authorities) Order 2007 SI 2007/3288 Terrorism Act 2000 (Business in the Regulated Sector and Supervisory Authorities) Order 2007 SI 2007/3289 National Health Service (Optical Charges and Payments) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 2007 SI 2007/3290 Immigration (Restrictions on Employment) Order 2007 SI 2007/3291 Patents Rules 2007 SI 2007/3292 Patents (Fees) Rules 2007 SI 2007/3293 Patents (Compulsory Licensing and Supplementary Protection Certificates) Regulations 2007 SI 2007/3295 Export and Movement Restrictions (Foot-And-Mouth Disease) Regulations 2007 SI 2007/3298 Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2007 SI 2007/3299 Money Laundering (Amendment) Regulations 2007 SI 2007/3307 Biofuels and Hydrocarbon Oil Duties (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2007

6 MERITS OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS COMMITTEE

APPENDIX 1: EXPLANATORY INFORMATION Draft Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board Order 2007

Issue 1. Further information requested on background and reasoning to the continued inclusion of the Horticultural Development Council (HDC) within the levy board restructuring and reform programme, in particular with reference to the results of recent public consultations.

Public Consultations 2. During the consultation on the recommendations of the Radcliffe Review, the HDC successfully encouraged its levy payers and trade associations to respond, resulting in a large percentage of the responses coming from this sector. The majority of these respondents expressed the view that there was little to be gained from the inclusion of HDC in the proposed restructuring. The reasons for their opposition were given as : - • loss of sector focus • limited overlap/synergy with agricultural sectors • already high efficiency/effectiveness of the HDC • fear that levies would be used to cross-subsidise other sectors • risks associated with change • limited potential cost benefits • loss of governance/accountability 3. Many respondents did acknowledge the need to address some weaknesses in the current levy board structures mentioned in the Review and all sectors supported the continuation of the statutory levy and a ‘Fresh Start’ examination of the levy board activities and levy rates. 4. Other stakeholders such as the National Farmers Union and the Horticultural Trades Association were supportive of a change to the current structures. 5. A further public consultation was held from March to June 2007, on what is now entitled the draft Agriculture and Horticulture Development Order, which aims to implement the new structure. The majority of respondents to this consultation acknowledged that there was a need to modernise and simplify levy arrangements, reducing burdens where possible. However it is true to say that many of the respondents from the horticultural sector continued to have deep reservations about the inclusion of the HDC in the reform process.

Rationale behind continuing inclusion of the horticulture sector/HDC within the restructuring 6. Whilst some within horticulture may consider their sector to be sufficiently different to agriculture to merit separate levy board arrangements, we believe there are many areas of common interest where the successor to the HDC, the horticulture sector company, would benefit from being more closely linked to the other agricultural sectors. 7. The responses to the public consultation on the Review also made clear that a number of growers contributed to at least one other statutory body such as the Home- Grown Cereals Authority or the British Potato Council. The restructuring will aim to

MERITS OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS COMMITTEE 7 ensure that service provision is delivered to levy payers in all sectors more efficiently and effectively. 8. In setting out the justification for the continuance of the statutory levy in all areas, the Review noted key drivers of change to which both the agriculture and horticulture sectors would need to respond. In particular: • state aid arrangements • key EU environmental legislation such as water, waste • World Trade Organisation and trade liberalisation • Sustainability and climate change • public sector efficiency • reducing administrative burdens. 9. All these drivers affect the horticultural sector in some way. For example, both horticulture and potato growers face a number of similar issues over water use and water quality or off-label pesticide use. 10. The Radcliffe Review found that that although the HDC is highly regarded by most, as with all levy boards there is room for improvement. In particular it was noted that HDC would need to take a more strategic approach to the issues facing the sector and would benefit from the reform which would deliver further efficiencies.

Conclusion 11. The HDC is a highly valued and efficient organisation and we would want to ensure that the successor arrangements continue to provide the same high level of service and responsiveness to levy payers. However the reform aims to provide better value for money and greater accountability to farmers and growers who pay the statutory levy, regardless of which sector they are from. 12. Other benefits of the reforms include: • improved governance and transparency e.g. decisions on levy expenditure taken close to levy payers; • improved performance evaluation and opportunity for shared learning between sectors; • Fresh start exercise ensuring appropriate activities undertaken; • Improved coordination of scientific and other research and development; • Increased flexibility to adapt to changes in sectors/industry; • Strategic coherence – better “joining up” across sectors; • Cost savings from increased efficiency and sharing of services.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs November 2007

8 MERITS OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS COMMITTEE

APPENDIX 2: EXPLANATORY INFORMATION (SI 2007/3101) European Qualifications (Health and Social Care Professions) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/3101)

Negotiation of Directive 1. The proposal for a Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications was introduced at the Barcelona Summit in March 2002 and presented to the Internal Market Consumer and Tourism Council on 21 May 2002. The Commission presented the draft legal text to Member States on 4 June 2002. Consultation on the draft Directive was launched in the UK on 1 July 2002 and closed on 30 September 2002. 2. There was general support for the proposal’s intent to rationalise and simplify the Directives covering the recognition of professional qualifications. Concerns were limited to new provisions which went beyond consolidation of existing legal text. A number of respondents welcomed the relaxations proposed for service providers, allowing a service provider to operate for sixteen weeks in a year on home state registration without having to seek and secure formal authorisation or registration in the host Member State, but there was strong reaction to the relaxations in some quarters, on grounds of public safety and protection and animal welfare. There was general support for the introduction of common platforms, subject to clarification of the means by which they would operate. The ability of a single committee to reflect the full range of professional interests covered by a single directive was also a cause for concern. 3. Discussion during the negotiation phase of the Directive primarily centred on the new elements: temporary provision of services, common platforms and the single committee. As expected, the provisions relating to temporary provision of services raised the most concerns, and as a result the most contentious issues were displaced by safeguards. Article 15 of the Directive contains further clarification on common platforms and Article 59 gives reassurance about consultation with expert groups of professionals. The European Directive 2005/36/EC was adopted on 7 September 2005. 4. Under the temporary provision of services provision, we argued for a maximum of 16 weeks by which a migrant could provide services under their home state registration. However, no agreement could be reached with other member states on the time limit, therefore, no time limit was agreed. This effectively meant that temporary registration could be undertaken for 52 weeks. We did secure flexibility in the case of regulated professions having public health or safety implications that the competent authority could check professional qualifications. We have taken up this option while some member states have indicated that they were proposing not to check.

Documentary Evidence 5. The Committee has asked how we envisage UK regulators will be able to check the authenticity of documents presented and whether they relate to the individual. 6. The Directive allows regulators (competent authorities) only to ask the migrant for confirmation that he/she is legally established in a Member State, evidence of professional qualifications and proof of nationality. However, the regulators can ask the competent authority in the migrant’s member state for further relevant information. To help speed up the process of checking a new computer system is being set up for the regulators in each member state to communicate with each other. The system, known as IMI, is currently being piloted and the General Medical Council are leading on the pilot and introduction on behalf of the UK. Article 8 of Directive 2005/36/EC on recognition of professional qualifications provides, for the first time, a statutory duty on EEA competent authorities

MERITS OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS COMMITTEE 9 to cooperate with each other. Each competent authority (GMC etc and their equivalents throughout the EEA) will have a legal requirement to provide on request any relevant information as to the legality of the professional’s establishment and good conduct. Competent authorities will also be required to provide any information concerning disciplinary or criminal sanctions of a professional nature. The IMI system will be used for the information flows and the European Commission will monitor, and if necessary take action, including failure to respond to relevant information requests. 7. The requirement to cooperate and the new IMI system will improve information flows and will enhance the checking process. Document authenticity has not changed and the UK regulators are able to check with their European counterparts if suspicions are aroused. Department of Health November 2007

10 MERITS OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS COMMITTEE

APPENDIX 3: EXPLANATORY INFORMATION Reinsurance Directive Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/3253) Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Reinsurance Directive) Order 2007 (SI 2007/3254) Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Reinsurance Directive) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/3255)

Advice on consultation 1. The Treasury consulted publicly on its proposals to complete implementation of the Reinsurance Directive between 25 July and 17 October 2007. The consultation document was drafted, and the consultation process conducted, in accordance with the principles set out in the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Consultation and the Better Regulation Executive consultation guidance. The consultation document (including the draft Statutory Instruments) was published on the Treasury’s website in the ‘consultation & legislation’ section. Direct e-mail notification of the publication of the consultation document was sent to key stakeholders. Hardcopies of the document were made available on request. 2. The key stakeholders consulted included: pure reinsurance companies (who are most affected by the proposals); general insurers (both as possible providers of reinsurance and as the clients of reinsurers); law firms (including representative bodies such as the City of London Law Society); International Underwriting Association and other trade bodies; Lloyd’s of London; and the Financial Services Authority (FSA) which, itself, was responsible for implementing parts of the Reinsurance Directive. Nine responses (including one ‘no comment’) were received. 3. In general, the proposals were welcomed. Comments were mostly directed at the drafting of the SIs. In terms of the main questions posed in the consultation document, all respondents who expressed an opinion agreed with the proposals for implementing the passport rights for pure reinsurance companies. There was broad support for the proposed widening of one of the existing exclusions from the court approval process for insurance business transfers. Though one respondent felt the exclusions could apply more widely, while another took the opposite view, suggesting that the existence of exclusions could distort the market and failed to recognise the full range of issues that should be considered in transfers. Further discussion clarified that the proposed amendments represent only a narrow extension of the existing exclusions, which only apply to tightly prescribed circumstances where transfers are low risk. The Treasury is implementing the proposal, but is not making any additional exclusions in the regulations. 4. Proposals for giving the court discretion to apply existing publication requirements for transfers to all transfers involving reinsurance were supported, as was the proposal to extend passporting rights to Gibraltar-based firms wishing to establish branches in or provide services in the UK. Respondents also raised several other issues. The Reinsurance Directive permits the provision of rules to allow for Insurance Special Purpose Vehicles [ISPVs]. ISPVs are special purpose reinsurance vehicles which must be fully funded, typically by issuing debt. The introduction of an ISPV regime allows insurers to manage their capital more efficiently. Changes to the FSA’s rulebook have been already made to establish an appropriate regime. However, one respondent identified a consequential amendment to the definition of ‘authorised insurance company’ in section 268 of the Companies Act 1985 (and its analogue in section 843 of the Companies Act 2006) that is necessary to ensure the regime operates correctly. The amendment has been included in the regulations.

MERITS OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS COMMITTEE 11

5. Another respondent suggested that section 116 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 should be amended to provide for recognition in the UK of transfers of reinsurance by direct insurers in other member states. This would mean that reinsurance policyholders in the UK of mixed insurers given appropriate ex post facto notice under section 116 would be bound by the transfer. Although it would reflect the position for transfers by pure reinsurers, as established by the Reinsurance Directive Regulations, the Treasury does not intend to take forward this point. This is because protections under the Reinsurance Directive that would apply to transfers by pure reinsurers (i.e. a solvency certificate about the transferee) would not apply in the case of transfers of reinsurance by mixed insurers. HM Treasury December 2007