Source · Select Committees · Treasury Committee
Recommendation 14
14
Paragraph: 85
We have set out above reasons why we do not believe that Parliament or its...
Conclusion
We have set out above reasons why we do not believe that Parliament or its committees need necessarily carry out detailed and comprehensive textual scrutiny for every new draft regulation or rule, although it would always be open to a committee of either House to do so. We envisage that scrutiny would be both “ex-ante” and “ex post”. “Ex-ante” scrutiny could be based upon expert analysis of draft texts, together with an exploration of representations made by industry stakeholders, consumer representatives and others, with robust challenge to the regulators when warranted. “Ex post” scrutiny might entail reviews of the impact of regulations and an assessment of the balance struck between protection for the consumer and effective operation for the industry.
Paragraph Reference:
85
Government Response
Acknowledged
HM Government
Acknowledged
Third, I welcome the Committee’s recommendation that a ‘targeted approach’ to scrutiny by Select Committees is the appropriate model for Parliamentary scrutiny of regulator activity, whereby the Committee should scrutinise the activities of the regulators in more detail where it considers there is a wider public interest in doing so. As I set out in my evidence session, this is more appropriate than the approach taken by the ECON