Adequate consultation
47. The Department published a consultation document
on both proposals on 18 March 2003. The document was sent to 211
organisations, comprising large retailers, some local authorities,
business associations, individuals and other organisations.[22]
The document was made available on three central government websites
and one coordinating website for local authority regulators, in
addition to being sent out via the Local Government Association
Public Protection monthly bulletin (distributed to some 300 local
authorities). Consultees were given over twelve weeks to respond,
above the recommended minimum set out in the Government's Code
of Practice on written consultation.[23]
48. 46 responses were received: 25 from retailers,
one from another business, six from local authorities, three from
business associations, three from professional organisations,
three from other organisations and two from individuals. The Department's
analysis of the responses in raw statistical terms indicates 39
responses in favour of proposal A, three opposed and four neutral.
[24] The 35 responses
to offer a view on proposal B were unanimously in favour.[25]
49. The consultation document was not sent directly
to all local authorities. Annex A of the explanatory statement
indicates that the only local authorities specifically to be consulted
during the consultation period (as opposed to the pre-consultation
exercise) were Liverpool City Council, Manchester City Council
and Newport City Council. In addition the Local Authorities Co-ordinators
of Regulatory Services (LACORS) were consulted, and notices of
consultation were sent out via the LGA Public Protection monthly
bulletin. In total, six local authorities made responses to the
consultation.[26]
50. On the basis of the pre-consultation exercise
described at paragraphs 42 to 44 above, and subsequent discussions
with the LGA and LACORS, the Department considered that it was
not necessary to send copies of the consultation paper directly
to every local authority affected by the present requirements.
The LGA considered that it was sufficient to notify the relevant
officials in its member authorities by means of notices in its
Public Protection bulletin and on the LACORS website.
51. We are satisfied that the Department has consulted
adequately on the proposals, and that the draft Order has taken
appropriate account of the results of the consultation.
52. As the pre-consultation exercise substantially
informed the Department's subsequent consultation strategy, details
of that exercise were clearly material to our consideration of
the adequacy of the consultation process. While we consider
that the consultation strategy adopted by the Department was appropriate
to the circumstances, we believe that fuller details of the pre-consultation
exercise should have been included in the explanatory statement
which accompanied the proposal for the Order. We also consider
that the Department should have extended the pre-consultation
exercise to a more representative sample of local authority areas.
Costs and benefits
53. The Department does not believe that proposal
A would impose any costs on business. The regulatory impact assessment
indicates that the annual administrative savings to business and
local authorities would amount to £60,000—£75,000.[27]
54. The Department believes that the benefits of
the implementation of proposal A, other than cost savings, are
the reduction in administrative requirements on businesses and
local authorities.
55. The Department sees no costs to business from
the implementation of proposal B, but considers the cost savings
to businesses currently compliant with the legislation to be negligible.
56. The assessed benefits of proposal B, other than
the small cost savings, are described by the Department as:—
—
the removal of a restriction on business;
— the removal of a restriction on customers;
— the removal of confusion as to the state
of the law in this area;
— provision for a level playing field for
all retailers; and
— 'the removal of unnecessary and archaic
legislation from the statute book'.
57. Regulatory impact assessments for proposals A
and B are attached to the explanatory statement.[28]
On the basis of the regulatory impact assessments which have
been prepared, we are satisfied that both proposals have been
the subject of, and taken appropriate account of, estimates of
increases or reductions in costs or other benefits which may result
from the implementation of the proposed Order.
13 Explanatory statement, para 31 Back
14
Explanatory statement, para 34 Back
15
Appendix B Back
16
Ibid. Back
17
A summary of all responses to the consultation, and the Government's
comments, is at annex B of the explanatory statement. Back
18
Explanatory statement, para 38 Back
19
The authorities visited were the City and County of Swansea, Newport
City Council, Bristol City Council, Liverpool City Council and
Manchester City Council. Authorities contacted by telephone or
e-mail were the London Boroughs of Croydon, Haringey, Kingston
and Merton, Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council, Newcastle City
Council and Bromsgrove Borough Council. A table summarising the
pre-consultation process is at Appendix B. Back
20
Appendix B Back
21
Ibid. Back
22
Listed at Annex A of the explanatory statement. Back
23
Explanatory statement, para 47 Back
24
Ibid., para 50 Back
25
Ibid., para 51 Back
26
Borough of Poole, Liverpool City Council, Darlington Borough Council,
Blackpool Borough Council, London Borough of Enfield and London
Borough of Haringey. Back
27
The regulatory impact assessments in respect of each proposal
are at Annex C and D of the explanatory statement respectively. Back
28
Explanatory statement, annexes C and D Back
