Adequate consultation
41. A first consultation was published by DCLG in
July 2005 and ran from 20 July 2005 until 14 October 2005.[24]
The consultation document was published on the Department's website
and sent to all local authorities and to a range of other organisations
connected with each of the proposals. The Attorney General's office
was consulted on the proposed change to the Cancer Act 1939. The
office confirmed that it agreed with the proposal to remove the
requirement to obtain the Attorney General's consent for prosecutions
and to remove the duty on local authorities to prosecute, and
stated that it had no other comments.
42. The main consultation document covered all four
of the provisions included in this draft Order. It also included
questions about another provision, relating to s71(2) of the Local
Government and Housing Act 1989, which the DCLG states was removed
from the draft Order due to the provision made for the repeal
of Part V of that Act in its entirety in Part 12 of the Local
Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill. The public consultation
was conducted under requirements laid down under the Regulatory
Reform Act 2001, but also satisfied the requirements of the LRRA
2006. All of the respondents to the main consultation supported
the proposals on which they commented, and the DCLG told us that
the most common additional response was that deregulation should
go a lot further.[25]
43. A supplementary consultation was conducted regarding
the proposal to correct an anomaly whereby s4(7) of the Cancer
Act 1939 omitted reference to metropolitan district councils.
Three of the four respondents were supportive of correcting the
anomaly and the remaining respondent commented on matters outside
the scope of the consultation.[26]
Another small scale supplementary consultation was carried out
with regard to transitional provision for taxi zone amalgamation
resolutions submitted before the draft Order became effective
and not yet approved or disapproved.[27]
All five consultees were supportive of the proposed transitional
provision and none raised any problems.[28]
44. We consider that the consultations
met the requirements of s13 of the LRRA 2006.
7 Explanatory Document paras 4.8 and 4.9 Back
8
Appendix B, Letter from DCLG to the Committee Clerk, response
to question 3 Back
9
See footnote 6 on p 9 of Explanatory Document, which details all
the relevant local authorities Back
10
Explanatory Document, paras 4.9 and 4.11 Back
11
Appendix B, Letter from DCLG to Committee Clerk, response to question
3 Back
12
Appendix B, Letter from DCLG to Committee Clerk, response to question
9 Back
13
SO No. 141(3)(g) Back
14
SO No. 141(3)(f) Back
15
SO No.141(3)(h) Back
16
Appendix B, Letter from DCLG to Committee Clerk, response to question
6 Back
17
Explanatory Document, para 5.10 Back
18
Appendix B, response to question 10(d) Back
19
Explanatory Document, paras 5.23 to 5.28 Back
20
Appendix B, response to question 9 Back
21
Explanatory Document para 6.9 Back
22
Appendix D, response to question 3 Back
23
Appendix F Back
24
A summary of responses is provided in the Explanatory Document
paras 3.5, 3.6 Back
25
Explanatory Document, para 3.6 Back
26
Explanatory Document, p24 Back
27
Explanatory Document, paras 5.29 and 5.30 and Appendix B, Letter
from DCLG to the Committee Clerk, response to question 12 Back
28
Explanatory Document, para 5.30 Back