Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-42)
16 NOVEMBER 2004
RUTH KELLY
MP, MR SIMON
VIRLEY AND
MR PHILIP
CLARKE
Q40 Brian Cotter: On the one hand I approve
very much of not having too much paperwork produced—although
in your last paragraph you have said that when laying proposals
for scrutiny Departments have to copy a large amount of papers,
so it is good if they do not have to do so. As a general point
the paper needs to be distributed to the general public and very
often, with people like ourselves and staff, through electronic
transmission seems to be the best way. Minister, as I have the
opportunity to sum up the argument, there has been a Regulatory
Impact Assessment ever since I have been in Parliament and we
have seen improvements in that direction, and those improvements
are to be welcomed. This is a general comment, if I may, on Bills
and this process as well: why is it so difficult to actually produce
Regulatory Impact Assessments, or is it seen to be a burden, if
you like? It is a very key issue indeed—that no Government
should produce something without really knowing what impact it
has. If you do not have the aptitude to say, "We must look
at the impact first, and then decide whether to do it second",
it is a concern. I do give credit to this Government that you
have improved but there is always room for improvement?
Ruth Kelly: I completely agree
that we need to make the RIA process work as well as possible.
The issue that I identified in my letter is that we do not have
a consistent process for the RRO process as applies to the rest
of Government when bringing forward legislation; and that there
is only a requirement on the Government producing legislation
for an RIA where there is an impact on businesses, charities and
the voluntary sectors; whereas the RRO process requires an RIA
for all proposals. The issue is not whether we need to understand
the impact, because we do; it is a question of whether the formal
RIA procedure needs to be gone through, which is quite a burdensome
process, when a really thorough cost benefit analysis might be
just as good a way of gauging whether the reform is needed or
not. This is a proposal really just for those proposals which
do not impact significantly on businesses, charities or the voluntary
sector.
Q41 Brian White: This process has one
benefit that none of the other legislation has, which is the requirement
to use plain English, which I think is actually a benefit. In
your review are you going to be looking at extending that to other
pieces of legislation?
Ruth Kelly: I think the review
will be about the operation of the RRO process itself. However,
I take your point that using plain English is something we should
encourage wherever possible.
Q42 Chairman: Minister, can I thank you
for coming along this morning. There are a few small points we
will follow up on, because we have several more items but the
major issues we have raised. I recognise if I were answering Questions
in the House I would want to get away. We will thank you for your
evidence this morning and follow up the other issues in writing.
All the main issues we have covered today. Thank you very much.
Ruth Kelly: Thank you, Chairman.
|
