Select Committee on Regulatory Reform Seventh Report

3 Findings of our previous report

5. We issued our substantive report on 3 March 2004, early in the 60 day period for Parliamentary consideration. On 30 March 2004 we made our formal report to the House, recommending that a draft Order in the same form as the proposal should be laid before the House.[4]

6. We were satisfied that the proposal met the criteria against which we were required to judge it. We considered that the proposal was both straightforward and beneficial and we concluded that a draft Order in the same terms as the proposal should be laid before the House.

Adequate consultation

7. We were satisfied that the proposal had been the subject of an adequate consultation process. All of those who responded to the Department's invitation gave their support to the proposal.

8. We noted that the Department had not initially identified all of those whom it consulted on the proposal when laying the draft Order before Parliament. The schedule of consultees included the general designations "Community Organisations" and "Educational Organisations". At our request the Department identified the particular parties concerned as being The Isle of Dogs Community Foundation and the Director of Education at Tower Hamlets Borough Council. Whilst having no concern about the adequacy of the consultation process itself, we did feel it was misleading for the Department initially to have suggested that a range of community and educational bodies had been consulted. We questioned why the individual consultees concerned should not have been properly identified at the time the proposal was laid.[5]

---

4   Votes and Proceedings, 30 March 2004 Back

5   HC (2003-04) 414, para 38 Back

---

Prepared 13 May 2004