Cabinet Office memorandum
28. The Government has responded to our October 2002
comments by stating that "it welcomes the Committee's confirmation
that it has no problem in dealing with up to two items laid in
any sitting week",[31]
although it has also acknowledged that "concerns about whether
high numbers of regulatory reform orders would stretch the capacity
of the Committees [have] not been fulfilled".[32]
29. We are pleased that the Government appears
to have accepted our suggested arrangements. In particular,
we welcome the Minister's recognition that the Government has
"everything to gain from making sure that the Committee is
able to discharge its functions at the same time as we are pushing
departments to try to drive forward a more steady flow of RROs
than has been emerging."[33]
30. However, we are concerned that the Government's
memorandum repeats our confirmation in slightly looser terms than
those in which we initially phrased it: we in fact stated that
we should have no difficulty in dealing with up to two items laid
in any sitting week provided that at least one of those
was a draft order, at second-stage scrutiny (or that both items
were "less complex" proposals for first-stage scrutiny).
The memorandum also goes on to suggest that, but for the developments
set out in our October 2002 report, the Government would have
been prevented from progressing more than 18 proposals in the
2003-04 Session.[34]
We do not consider the Government to be justified in drawing this
conclusion, given that we have always sought to make clear that
our principal concern is to ensure efficient and effective scrutiny,
rather than to hinder the progress of the Government's regulatory
reform programme. If it transpired that our capacity to consider
regulatory reform items was creating real difficulties for the
Government in taking regulatory reform business through Parliament,
we would be happy take a constructive approach and discuss these
difficulties with the Minister. Our impression is that we are
some way away from this situation.
31. In the interests of clarity, we once again summarise
our position on the timetabling of regulatory reform orders:[35]
- In order to ensure efficient
and effective scrutiny, we consider that the Government should
endeavour to ensure that there is a regular and even flow of proposals
and draft orders coming before Parliament
- As far as possible, the Government should aim
towards the objective that no more than one proposal for a regulatory
reform order or one draft order will in normal circumstances be
laid before Parliament in any one sitting week.
- Where this proves impossible, we are prepared
for the Government to lay two items in any sitting week, provided
that either at least one of those items is a draft order, at "second-stage"
scrutiny. We are also prepared to consider the possibility of
the Government laying two, less complex, proposals for "first-stage"
scrutiny.
- Should the flow of regulatory reform orders increase
to such an extent that these arrangements constitute a restriction
on the Government's ability to progress its regulatory reform
programme, it would then be for us and the House to consider how
to proceed.
If these arrangements were to constitute a genuine
restriction on the Government's ability to take its regulatory
reform programme forward, we would expect the Minister to approach
us at an early stage.
27 
