[Top]
You can seek collective ministerial agreement, where needed, through Cabinet Committee discussion or ministerial correspondence, depending on the type of proposal.
The kind of proposals which require collective consideration include publication of consultation documents and Green and White Papers and where the subject matter affects more than one department.
You can read further guidance on policy clearance on the Cabinet Office Cabinet Secretariat website.
You will need to find out whether your policy will need clearance from the Panel for Regulatory Accountability before you can seek wider ministerial agreement.
Policy or other proposals will need consideration by a Cabinet Committee where:
Most committee business can be settled through an exchange of letters with the minister who chairs the relevant committee, copied to the Prime Minister, members of the committee and the Secretary of the Cabinet. You should keep your letters short, clear and accurate and include the partial RIA. If the proposal is judged to be significant you should include a Regulatory Impact Statement in your letter.
The Prime Minister has asked that all letters start with a short paragraph in bold which summarises the key issues and recommendations in the letter with a specific date by which responses are sought. This date must allow no less than ten clear working days for comment. Reasons must be given if less time is allowed.
You should bear in mind that if the proposal has been changed substantially following consultation you may need to get further collective ministerial clearance (and clearance through the Legislative Programme Committee (LP Committee) if primary legislation is involved). Check with your departmental Better Regulation Unit (BRU ) and with the relevant Cabinet Committee Secretariat for more advice about whether this is necessary.
Regulatory Impact Statement on proposals to revise controls on the recycling of sewage sludge to agricultural land.
'The investment necessary to deal with the end of sea dumping and the increased quantities of sludge which will be produced during the period up to end 2005 has been allowed in price limits set by OFWAT, with water company strategies based on greater use of recycling sludge on agricultural land and in some cases partly on increased incineration. The capital cost of these improvements in England and Wales is estimated to be approximately £400 million between 2000-2005.
The partial Regulatory Impact Assessment demonstrates clear environmental benefits of the proposed Regulations compared to the costs for businesses. Incineration would require £173 million in recurring costs, landfill £83 million while the agricultural route costs £23 million. In addition, incineration would require capital costs of £661 million whereas the current AMP3 programme for the agricultural route requires £400 million. As this proposal may involve significant costs for industry, the Cabinet Office's Better Regulation Executive has been consulted. The Unit was content that the risks, costs and benefits of this proposal had been properly assessed and that the proposal appears consistent with the principles of good regulation - transparency, accountability, targeting, consistency and proportionality.'
[Top]
All regulatory proposals likely to impose a major new burden on business require clearance from the Panel for Regulatory Accountability, chaired by the Prime Minister. The two main exemptions from this are emergency legislation and tax matters considered by the Chancellor in the course of normal budgetary processes. The Panel's consideration is based on a thorough RIA for the proposal being agreed by the Cabinet Office BRE, before the proposal can be put to wider ministerial approval. The Panel considers all such proposals in the context of the department's previous regulatory performance and the burden of regulation across key business sectors.
Contact your BRU to find out whether your policy will require clearance from the Panel for Regulatory Accountability.
[Top]