The Regulatory Impact Assessment
Recommendations 66 to 70
66.
Given that Defra has had well over two years since its initial
consultation on the draft Bill in January 2002, we are both surprised
and concerned that the appraisal of alternatives to regulation
in the Regulatory Impact Assessment accompanying the draft Bill
is not better developed. Defra's excessively simplistic assessment
of options fails to quantify the benefits of the legislation or
its alternatives, which limits Defra's ability to demonstrate
that the benefits of the proposed legislation would exceed the
costs. (Paragraph 274)
67.
Defra's assessment of the probable enforcement costs arising from
the implementation of the legislation as "negligible"
appears to us to be simplistic in the extreme, for the following
reasons:
- Defra appears to have ignored the probable
increase—at least initially—in prosecution and conviction
numbers from the new offences which the draft Bill would create.
- Defra does not appear to have accounted for
the fact that proposals in secondary legislation will require
appropriately skilled personnel to provide enforcement and inspection
services and veterinary expertise in newly regulated areas such
as animal sanctuaries, livery yards and greyhound tracks. We received
evidence suggesting that there is a significant skills shortage
in these areas and we are therefore concerned that the Regulatory
Impact Assessment does not quantify what extra resources will
be required nor how they will be provided. The Regulatory Impact
Assessment states that "each piece of secondary legislation
will be subject to a separate RIA and consultation once it is
decided to take forward work on that particular regulation/order",
which suggests to us that
- Defra has given no detailed consideration
to the likely resource implications of its proposed secondary
legislation.
- Defra has proposed that local authorities
should operate their licensing services on the basis of full cost
recovery, yet the practicalities of this proposal are nowhere
discussed in the Regulatory Impact Assessment. (Paragraph 282)
68.
We consider that the Regulatory Impact Assessment accompanying
the draft Bill fails to demonstrate that the benefits of the proposed
legislation would exceed the costs, as is required by Cabinet
Office and National Audit Office guidance. The Regulatory Impact
Assessment shows evidence of a lack of thorough consideration,
on the part of Defra, about the likely consequences of enacting
the draft Bill. It fails to demonstrate what measurable benefits
would arise from enactment and provides only weakly evidenced
and limited cost information. We are concerned that Defra's poor
assessment of the likely long-term implications of the draft Bill,
together with the extent to which Defra proposes to defer policy
decisions to secondary legislation, indicates that Defra is not
yet properly prepared to legislate in this area. We therefore
consider that the Regulatory Impact Assessment lacks credibility
and provides an inadequate basis for pre-legislative scrutiny.
(Paragraph 283)
69.
Consequently, we recommend that, before a final Bill is introduced
to Parliament, Defra produces a new Regulatory Impact Assessment
which better meets the requirements of Cabinet Office and National
Audit Office guidance. The revised Regulatory Impact Assessment
should include:
- a more thorough options appraisal
- a quantification of benefits
- a more comprehensive consideration of costs,
including the costs of secondary legislation
- evidence to demonstrate that full cost recovery
by local authorities is a realistic operational objective, and
- evidence to demonstrate that sufficient appropriately
skilled personnel exist to provide enforcement and inspection
services and veterinary expertise in newly regulated areas such
as animal sanctuaries, livery yards and greyhound tracks. If such
evidence is not available, Defra should explain how it proposes
to address this shortage. (Paragraph 284)
70.
We also recommend that, in order to gauge whether costs are accurately
reflected in its Regulatory Impact Assessment, Defra consults
with the appropriate authorities about the likely costs of enforcement,
licensing and inspection. (Paragraph 285)
We do not accept that the draft RIA failed to meet
Cabinet Office and NAO guidelines. The Cabinet Office was consulted
at all stages during the preparation of the RIA and we also worked
closely with local authority associations and representatives,
the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and other government departments,
the professional veterinarian associations, the RSPCA and other
major welfare organisations, the police, industries and groups
that the Bill may impact on and the Small Business Service. The
Cabinet Office has indicated that they are satisfied with the
contents, including costs, of the revised RIA.
However, in the light of the comments made by the
Committee, we propose to make a number of changes to the RIA to
address some of the concerns highlighted. Two tables will be inserted
that demonstrate the number of visits that the RSPCA, the principal
enforcer of animal welfare law, makes in a 12 month period to
'welfare cases' and the costs associated with these visits. The
tables show that by having a specific welfare offence the need
for so many visits to such cases will be reduced leading to savings.
In addition, we have added more detail to explain
the benefits, in terms of improved animal welfare, that regulation
has brought to existing activities (e.g. pet shops, dog breeding,
animal boarding and riding establishments) and to show that we
can therefore expect similar benefits to result from the regulation
of new activities.
Another major criticism was that the RIA did not
explain why enforcement costs for local authorities would not
rise significantly. A table will be inserted that shows the average
number of existing licensed activities per local authority compared
with the average number proposed under the Bill. Although there
will be more licensed activities under the Bill for local authorities
to administer, the table shows that because of the move from 12
month to 18 month licences, the average number of inspections
per local authority over a three year period will not rise significantly
(from 109.2 to 121.0).
We will also mention the scope for contracting staff
from other agencies, e.g. the British Horse Society, to assist
with licensing work where there is a need for additional help.
We intend to bring forward the proposed regulation
of greyhound tracks by one year from 2009/10 to 2008/9 in response
to the concern that a timescale of the end of the decade was too
far away. We will however emphasise the need to have time to allow
the greyhound racing authorities to continue to implement change
and the need for time to train local authority inspectors.
In terms of presentation, the table that was at the
end of the main body of the published RIA (page 82 of that document)
that summarised the costs set out at each annex will be moved
to the Option 3 costs section together with its introductory paragraph.
Annex A (Proposal to licence circuses and other performing
animals in entertainment) will be amended to reflect more accurately
the proposal to licence all trainers/suppliers of animals with
a requirement that professional entertainments and advertisers,
including film, theatre, television and circus should only use
animals provided by a licensed trainer.
The statistics (the risk that the Bill addresses)
will be updated from 2002 to 2003 figures and the number of animal
rescue centres/ sanctuaries will be changed from "no statistics
available" to an estimated figure of 700 to reflect the total
figure at Annex E.
The revised RIA will also refer to the possibility
of centrally provided training to help local authorities to get
to grips with new ways of working under the Bill.
We will also add annexes relating to the licensing
of dog breeders, animal boarding establishments and riding establishments.
| 
