APPENDIX
The Committee's proposal on additional criteria
for examining proposals
COMMITTEE REPORT
47. The Committee noted the emphasis placed on protection
of individuals' rights and freedoms in the consultation document,
and recommended that the Bill should specify this protection as
one of the requirements to be met by a deregulation proposal.
The Committee also recommended that a consequent amendment should
be made to Standing Order No. 141(5)(A), to include this consideration
within the Committee's criteria for assessing proposals.
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
48. In line with the European Convention on Human
Rights, the Government places great importance on the issue of
protection of individuals' rights and freedoms. It fully agrees
with the Committee's recommendation and had already planned that
relevant test under ECHR jurisprudence should be included in legislation
when Parliamentary time allows. The Government welcomes the Committee's
intention to formalise the requirement for its members to have
particular regard to this issue in its consideration of proposed
orders.
Proposal on procedural changes
COMMITTEE RESPONSE
49. The Committee rejected the proposal that where
both Committees have reported favourably before the end of the
sixty-day period, it should be possible to proceed directly to
the second scrutiny without waiting for the end of the sixty days.
This rejection was on the basis that the proposed change to the
scrutiny procedure would limit the opportunities for the public
to make representations to the Committee. Representations have
in the past been received right up to the end of the sixty-day
period.
50. The Committee also rejected the suggestion that
the second scrutiny might be foregone in cases where draft orders
had not been amended in any way during the first scrutiny period,
as it did not consider it appropriate to diminish the scrutiny
requirements while the Government is seeking to expand the scope
of the order-making power. Further, the Committee did not wish
to reduce the procedural opportunities for its members to ensure
debate on a draft order.
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
51. The Government is mindful of the need to avoid
doing anything that would damage the effectiveness of the scrutiny
procedure. This is especially important in the context of the
proposed amendments to extend the scope of the order-making power.
Given this consideration, the Government is minded to retain the
scrutiny process as it currently operates.
| 
