Supplementary memorandum from Pat McFadden
MP
As I promised today I am writing to you with
further information about Government responses to consultation.
In my evidence to the Committee I mentioned
the pensions consultation and the consultation on the third sector
as examples I thought had been valuable.
I have added some further examples below. I
would like to reiterate the point I made to the committee that
a government consultation, either on policy or on aspects of policy
implementation, is not the same as the long standing mechanisms
open to citizens to present petitions to parliament or the Prime
Minister.
It is important that consultation documents
spell out clearly areas where views are being sort or where the
Government has committed itself to something, for example a manifesto
commitment, or is responding to international obligations. For
this reason, I believe that one of the hallmarks of good consultation
is making clear exactly what is being consulted on.
In addition to the examples I mentioned at the
committee, other examples of consultation the Committee may wish
to consider might be:
— The DfT's consultation with the airline
industry on the enforcement of European Regulations on `Compensation
to Passengers Denied Boarding' acted on the concerns of industry
stakeholders. The first consultation recommended using criminal
sanctions together with a requirement to maintain details of compensation
and assistance provided. From the responses received it was clear
that the airline industry had major concerns about the potential
additional regulatory costs associated with this option. In the
light of these concerns DfT ministers reviewed the Regulations
so that the enforcement procedure was simplified and the potential
regulatory burden lightened without reducing the level of protection
available to passengers.
— The Home Office carried out a consultation
on compensation and support for victims of crime. One area of
the consultation focussed on how to ensure that employers do all
they can to mitigate the risk of criminal injury to staff. The
Government accepted the arguments raised by respondents around
this issue and decided against legislating. Going forward, the
Government will build on existing effective practice and continue
to work with employers' organisations and trade unions.
— The MHRA undertook extensive stakeholder
consultation in 2003-04 before implementing EU obligations on
the use of common names for medicinal substances. As a result
of this, the timetable adopted for changing the names used for
some medicines in the UK was fixed to take account of prescribing
and dispensing software providers' views on the time required
for them to make the necessary changes to their IT systems. Also,
the existing name "adrenaline" was retained, following
concerns expressed by healthcare professionals and patients groups
that the new name "epinephrine" could pose risks to
patient safety.
— HMT launched a consultation on "Modernising
tax relief for business expenditure on cars" in 2006. As
a result of the responses received, the Government has refined
its preferred options for capital allowances and the lease rental
restriction and is currently consulting on these, with a deadline
for responses of 16 May 2007.
— General Food Law Regulation (EC)
178/2002 includes requirements for food businesses relating to
food safety, traceability and the need to notify, withdraw and/or
recall unsafe food. The Food Standards Agency consulted in July
2005 for views on the practical impact of EC Guidance on the Regulation
to inform a review of the Guidance by the European Commission.
The overall response from UK food businesses was that the EC Guidance
was resulting in disproportionate costs to the food industry,
primarily from the best practice requirements on keeping records
for traceability purposes. As a result, the FSA drafted new Guidance
Notes which focus primarily on the legal requirements under the
Regulation and are more appropriate for food businesses in the
UK.
— In the consultation on the proposed
Patents Bill, the UK Intellectual Property Office suggested opening
up the Office's jurisdiction to hear litigation over patent infringement.
The consultation responses were not favourable, and called for
alternative mechanisms for resolving disputes without recourse
to expensive and time consuming litigation. So the new "Opinions
Service" was put in place, which provides a cheap, quick
and impartial assessment of the infringement issues in a potential
or actual dispute.
The Cabinet Office is responsible for the Code
of Practice on Consultation, which sets the guidelines for how
Departments across Government consult. However, it does not and
should not act as a watchdog to ensure that Departments take on
board consultations responses—individual Ministers have
a responsibility to ensure that their Departments observe the
Code and, also, to decide on how consultation responses will influence
policy. We are, however, in the process of reviewing the Code
of Practice as of course we recognise that there is a need to
continually improve the consultation process.
|
