Still not convinced Emma. Reg 68/79 only has effect by virtue of Reg 8(2) of the D&A Regs – without Reg 8(2) there would be nothing to tie Reg 68/79 into any superseding decisions. Reg 8(2) has always done that since July 2001 and the only thing that changed in 2006 was a consequential amenement to Reg 8(2) so that it refers to the updated Reg 79 instead of 68.
But the addition of Reg 7(2)(i) and 8(14) from October 2003 was a real substantive change and remains the most recent substantive change in my view.
Sorry, I’m still not persuaded that the 2006 Regs should be read as having implicitly revoked Reg 8(14)!
.
