Scrutiny and Review
74. In a private briefing to us, and reinforced in
their memorandum, Colin Kirkpatrick and Clive George from the
Impact Assessment Research Centre at the University of Manchester
identified the lack of thorough scrutiny and review of RIAs as
the single greatest factor influencing the poor quality of analysis
of environmental impacts.[79]
Similar concerns over inadequate review structures were also
expressed by Merlin Hyman of the EIC, who identified as one of
the key problems affecting RIAs "the lack of enforcement
by the Cabinet Office of the environment, social, sustainable
development principles when they assess RIAs in the first place".[80]
The NAO's briefing found that assistance from the Better Regulation
Executive, responsible for ensuring the compliance of RIAs, is
normally "limited to published guidance and offering ad hoc
advice… the BRE will point out errors and weaknesses in the
RIA but they will not assess it for completeness, nor do BRE officials
have any specialist sustainable development expertise".[81]
In addition, the criteria triggering the BRE's involvement in
the process are limited and based almost entirely on economic
considerations, meaning that RIAs with potentially significant
environmental and social issues may not be subjected to this intervention.[82]
The NAO's annual review of RIAs for 2005-06 also assessed the
challenge function provided to RIAs by the departmental Better
Regulation teams, and found that although all teams undertook
some form of review, "the extent and depth of this challenge
differed markedly."[83]
75. A more thorough, rigorous and consistently
enforced programme of review and scrutiny would help to ensure
not only that the content and scope of RIAs was adequate, but
also that minimum standards were met for the quality of analysis
and calculation. This would be particularly important in the case
of environmental impacts due to the frequently poor coverage and
assessment of such impacts, as demonstrated in previous chapters.
An improved review system could also help to counteract the variations
in presentation and clarity highlighted by the NAO, thereby improving
the transparency of the document.[84]
We therefore believe that a demanding new review process would
be a key factor in developing, encouraging and reinforcing good
practice of all kinds.
76. We propose a system whereby all final RIAs
are subject to review on the broad terms of content, scope, quality
of analysis, clarity and presentation. We would expect training
and guidance to provide officials with the skills and resources
required to meet these conditions. We also recommend that the
Government devise a procedure by which a policy could be identified
as having an excessive environmental impact, triggering an examination
and re-evaluation of the policy idea with the objective of reducing
this negative environmental impact. In such circumstances we would
like to see firm support and advice provided to officials in order
to bring the policy in line with sustainable development principles
and initiatives before it proceeds to the next stage. We believe
that this approach will help to ensure that sustainable development
and environmental concerns receive adequate coverage and consideration
in RIAs.
77. We believe that, in addition to tightened review
of individual RIAs, a more thorough review programme is required
for the RIA process as a whole. The NAO, in its annual review
of RIAs for 2005-06 found departments undertake only "limited
efforts to evaluate the impact of legislation after it came into
force", with "no systematic feedback on the robustness
of assumptions used in the RIA."[85]
Any such process would be particularly effective for addressing
concepts which appear to be consistently misrepresented in impact
assessment, either due to inadequate analysis techniques or embedded
preconceptions. Merlin Hyman of the EIC told us his belief that
"on the whole they [RIAs] greatly underestimate the costs
of environmental policies and often underestimate the benefits
of them."[86] This
is the type of problem which a wider retrospective review of RIAs
could help to identify and address.
78. We support the proposal for more substantial
retrospective evaluation of the accuracy and suitability of the
figures and methods used to calculate impacts. We believe that
environmental impact assessment would particularly benefit from
such retrospective scrutiny, given the uncertainty behind the
techniques used to calculate environmental costs and benefits.
We would also call for such a review structure retrospectively
to evaluate the scope of impacts included in RIAs, as this could
identify frequently neglected environmental impacts and ensure
that they receive adequate attention in the future.
79 Ev 59-60 Back
80
Q 22 Back
81
National Audit Office, Regulatory Impact Assessments and Sustainable
Development - Briefing for the Environmental Audit Committee,
May 2006, paragraph 1.40-1.41 Back
82
Ibid. paragraph 1.40. According to the briefing "the
BRE gets involved directly with a particular RIA if the policy
contains 'significant measures' defined as costing more than £20
million; if the issue has high media topicality or sensitivity;
if there is a Better Regulation Commission report or interest
in the policy area; or if there is likely to be a disproportionate
impact on a particular group." Back
83
National Audit Office, Evaluation of Regulatory Impact Assessments
2005-06, HC 1305 of session 2005-2006 para 3.12 Back
84
National Audit Office, Regulatory Impact Assessments and Sustainable
Development - Briefing for the Environmental Audit Committee,
May 2006, paragraph 6. The NAO found that their review was complicated
by the fact that "the variable presentation of RIAs made
it difficult to see if and how sustainable development issues
had been considered". Back
85
National Audit Office, Evaluation of Regulatory Impact Assessments
2005-06, HC 1305 of session 2005-2006 paragraph 1.17 Back
86
Q 23 Back
| 
