Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-104)
MR STEVE
SMITH AND
MS SARAH
HARRISON
7 NOVEMBER 2006
Q100 David Howarth: I wanted to cover
the differences between your processes and the Government's. First,
about the relevance of the Regulatory Impact Assessment in the
EU, there are two views which have been put to us: one is that
the policy has been decided at the EU level already and therefore
that restricts any relevance of Impact Assessment here; and the
other view is that there is a fantastically wide range of ways
of implementing most Directives and that makes having an IA process
even more important. I am just wondering what your view was?
Mr Smith: You are absolutely right.
In some sense there are Directives that have affected our industry
that were incredibly prescriptive where, in essence, the IA would
have been pretty much a waste of time because the law was so prescriptive
you simply had to do something. There are other Directives, including
one which is very much about sustainability, which is the Energy
Services Directive which we have yet to implement where there
is big description in their attempts to set principles and things
that need to be done without being prescriptive about how. That
would seem to be a good example of a Directive where the Impact
Assessment process would be incredibly valuable in terms of actually
saying, "How are we going to implement this? What measures
or policies should we actually put on the ground to deliver the
requirements of this Directive?" I think where the Directive
is less prescriptive then the IA should be used to work out how
it would be implemented.
Q101 David Howarth: Does the present
UK Government practice distinguish properly between those two
sorts of Directives?
Mr Smith: To be honest, we have
very limited experience because the Directives we have been involved
with, the Internal Markets Directives, were I think in a prescriptive
mode and in some sense there was not much point. In ESD we have
yet to go through that process. I can see where you are driving
at but I do not have the experience to answer. Ask me when we
have been through the ESD process, I guess.
Q102 David Howarth: You mentioned
the Better Regulation Executive consultation. I am just wondering
what your view about that is. What specifically is your view as
to whether it meets the criticisms of the NAO about sustainable
development?
Ms Harrison: I think generally
with the Better Regulation Executive consultation, which we fully
engage with, we support the moves they are advocating with one
or two exceptions. This is consultation in the early stages but
I am sure the policy will develop. First of all, we support very
much the proposal for improved accessibility; and we also support
some of the monetisation where that is possible. At present the
BRE guidance seems to be pointing towards not looking to use qualitative
assessments of social and environmental impacts. Our experience
has been whilst it is possible that the drive is to quantify as
much as possible as one can on impacts, nonetheless there is a
role for qualitative assessment as well. Therefore certainly as
far as we are concerned, in the context of our duties we will
continue to do that. I think the other aspect of BRE work that
we have indeed commented upon is the proposal at the moment to
really consider a focus on a single policy option. Again our practice
has been and will probably continue to be to prosecute all reasonable
options, including the "do nothing" option, to make
sure they are tested.
Q103 David Howarth: What do you expect
the outcome of the consultation to be? Do you think they will
take on board what you are saying on present practice?
Ms Harrison: I am sure the BRE
will be taking a lot of views from a lot of different parties.
We have certainly made our views known. As I have said in terms
of our statutory duties which very much drive our approach to
RIAs, we will follow our own practice where we can and take account
of the BRE's advocacy.
Q104 Mr Chaytor: Could I ask one
final question before we draw to a close. You have emphasised
the importance of your statutory duty in terms of improving the
quality of your own Impact Assessment. Is there an argument that
a similar duty should be placed on individual government departments,
or possibly a public service agreement to promote sustainable
development? By analogy, would that improve performance of RIAs
within individual government departments?
Ms Harrison: Yes, I think the
focus it has brought to our own organisation—as I have said,
the duty since December 2003, our practice in this area began
earlier in that year—having that duty gives a focus and
gives rise to the sorts of arrangements we have put in place.
It has a part to play. There are other factors that will have
just as much value: external scrutiny being one; and consideration
of the IA process, not as a process of saying, "Right, let's
make sure it is dynamic" and good practice in terms of consultation.
These are other examples of where overall you can improve the
present practice.
Mr Chaytor: Thank you very much indeed.
That was extremely helpful.
| 
