Draft Regulatory Reform
(Museum of London) (Location of Premises) Order 2004
1. We are making this Special Report to draw attention
to a mis-statement of estimated cost savings in our report on
the proposal for the Regulatory Reform (Museum of London) (Location
of Premises) Order 2004. Our view is that this error does
not affect the validity of our recent unanimous recommendation
that the draft Regulatory Reform (Museum of London) (Location
of Premises) Order be approved.[1]
2. When examining proposals for regulatory reform
orders, among the matters we are required to consider is whether
such proposals for Regulatory Reform Orders have been the subject
of, and take appropriate account of, estimates of increases or
reductions in costs or other benefits which may result from their
implementation.[2] In our
report on the proposal, we stated that "the Department have
indicated that substantial savings could also be made on present
running expenses of the current museums by the implementation
of the proposal. These are of the nature of economies of scale
in the form of reduced staffing costs and the avoidance of the
expense of maintaining two separate charitable companies for the
two existing museums (with the attendant audit and Board secretarial
costs). These costs are forecast by the Department to amount to
around £1 million over the first three years of the operating
life of the Museum in Docklands".[3]
In making this statement, we relied upon the explanatory statement
from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport which formed
part of the proposal.
3. The Minister for the Arts wrote to us on 23 June
2004[4] to explain that
the cost savings had been considerably over-stated. Instead of
around £1 million, the Department now thought the savings
would be less than £120,000.[5]
4. Our counterparts in the House of Lords Delegated
Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee have received a similar
letter from the Minister. The Lords Committee has reported that
it remains of the view that the Order should be submitted to the
House for affirmative resolution.[6]
5. This is the second letter we have received from
the Minister to correct an over-statement about this Order. Another
of the matters we are required to consider is whether proposals
for Regulatory Reform Orders have been the subject of, and take
appropriate account of, adequate consultation.[7]
In its explanatory statement, the Department claimed to have consulted
"education organisations"; in fact a single letter had
been sent to one person, the Director of Education for the London
Borough of Tower Hamlets. Similarly, a claim to have consulted
"community organisations" turned out to refer to a single
letter to The Isle of Dogs Community Foundation. In our report
of 11 May 2004 on the draft Order, we said that we felt it was
misleading for the Department initially to have suggested that
a range of community and educational bodies had been consulted,
and we questioned why the individual consultees concerned should
not have been properly identified at the time the proposal was
laid.[8] In her letter
of 7 June, the Minister assured us that "there was no intention
to mislead the Committee" — which we entirely accept
— "but I appreciate this may have caused some confusion".[9]
6. We expect to be able to rely on the accuracy
of explanatory statements submitted by Government departments
in support of proposals for regulatory reform orders. While neither
of the Department's exaggerations, of the extent of consultation
and the level of savings, is fatal to the case for this particular
Order, we expect Ministers to avoid making such over-statements
in the papers they lay before Parliament.
7. We are content that the Department should proceed
to seek the approval of this House for the draft Regulatory Reform
(Museum of London) (Location of Premises) Order 2004.
1 Seventh Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee,
Session 2003-04, HC 594 Back
2
S.O. No. 141(6)(m) Back
3
Fourth Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee, Session 2003-04,
HC 414, paragraph 32 Back
4
Appendix A Back
5
A further note on the revised cost savings, provided to the Department
by Professor Jack Lohman, Director of the Museum of London, is
at Appendix B. Back
6
Twenty-second Report from the House of Lords Delegated Powers
and Regulatory Reform Committee, Session 2003-04, HL 122. The
House of Lords approved the draft Order on 25 June (HL Deb, 25
June 2004, cols 1469-1471). Back
7
S.O. No. 141(6) (d) Back
8
Fourth Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee, Session 2003-04,
HC 414, paragraph 38; Seventh Report from the Regulatory Reform
Committee, Session 2003-04, HC 594, paragraph 8. The Chairman
wrote to the Secretary of State to draw her attention to the mis-statement
(Appendix C). Back
9
Appendix D Back
| 
