1 Introduction
1. In October 2005 we announced our intention to
examine the procedural implications of what was then described
by the Government as its proposed 'Bill for Better Regulation.'
In July 2005 the Government published A Bill for Better Regulation:
Consultation Document which contained proposals to extend
'the power of [Regulatory Reform Orders] RROs to make them an
outcome-focused tool for the effective delivery of better regulation.'[2]
2. The consultation followed a review of the operation
of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 (the Act under which RROs are
made). That review concluded that the Act 'presented a number
of hurdles which inhibited the production of RROs; in particular
that the powers of the … Act were too technical and limited,
that the scope of RROs should be extended to deliver non-controversial
proposals for simplification and that the whole process for delivering
an RRO and subsequent scrutiny could be made more proportionate.'[3]
3. A summary of the consultation responses was published
in December 2005. On 11 January 2006 the Legislative and Regulatory
Reform Bill ('the Bill') was presented and read the first time
in the House of Commons. The Bill has three parts. Our inquiry
has concentrated on Part 1 (Power to reform legislation etc).
Part 2 deals with regulators and Part 3 with legislation relating
to the European Communities. The Bill was given a second reading
on 9 February.
4. The Regulatory Reform Committee published a special
report on the Bill on 6 February.[4]
That report, which is a comprehensive and authoritative analysis
of the provisions in Part 1 of the Bill, has been of great value
to us in our examination of whether the parliamentary procedures
proposed in the Bill are appropriate for the extension to existing
powers which the Government is proposing.
5. We held an oral evidence session with Mr Jim Murphy,
Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, on 7 February. At that
session he was not able to respond to the detail of the Regulatory
Reform Committee's recommendations. But he did
say that 'many of [the Committee's] recommendations have a good
deal of merit and we are minded to see just how we can take on
board the specific suggestions.'[5]
In the event, however, the Government's response, in the form
of a letter from the Minister to the Chairman of the Regulatory
Reform Committee did not explicitly accept any of the Committee's
recommendations relating to parliamentary procedures (see paragraphs
40 to 45 below).
6. Our intention has been to produce our report in
time to assist the House at the report stage of the Bill.
2 A Bill for Better Regulation: Consultation Document,
p 5. Back
3
Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, Explanatory Notes, paragraph
5. Back
4
HC (2005-06) 878. Back
5
Q 2 Back
| 
