Current Regulatory Reform Policy
15. We believe that the credibility of the
Administrative Burdens Reduction Programme savings figures and
the achievement of meaningful results are more important than
preoccupation with avoiding, say, a 2% or 3% shortfall on the
25% target. We therefore recommend careful scrutiny of all savings
figures, but at the same time call for recognition that the shortcomings
of the standard cost model require acceptance of flexibility around
targets. The ABRP should not be considered to have failed if,
for instance, 22% of real burdens reduction has a discernible
impact. (Paragraph 66)
16. We recommend that there be constant scrutiny
both of ongoing progress on the ABRP and of the robustness of
claimed Departmental savings. The BRE should play a continuous
role in such monitoring, which should cover burdens reduction
indicators beyond that of the 25% target, such as irritation factors
to businesses and others. (Paragraph 67)
17. We recommend that Government Departments
and Executive Agencies include in their Annual Reports their progress
against simplification plans, and that there be greater measurement
of actual take-up of savings proposals. We recommend that the
BRE to continue to look for ways to make greater impacts on burdens
reduction. (Paragraphs 68, 69 and 71)
18. We recommend that the BRE consider setting
up a body in this country analogous to the Stevens and Wientjes
Committees in the Netherlands. (Paragraph 73)
19. We recommend that the BRE focus on the
issue of customising communications to individual business sectors.
(Paragraph 74)
20. We recommend renewed focus on the target
of reducing public sector data requests by 30%. We recommend that
progress in reducing public sector and third sector burdens—and
their measurement—be given equal emphasis to that of the
business sector programme. (Paragraph 75)
21. We recommend that the BRE should have
a role in scrutiny of impact assessments, selected on the basis
of financial thresholds, including in support of any introduction
of regulatory budgets. (Paragraph 81)
22. Any proposed system for setting and publicising
regulatory budgets should take into account the fact that desirable
regulation, not least in the environmental and health and safety
areas, carries with it certain inevitable costs. Similarly, there
should be safeguards against undue pressure to remove necessary
regulation merely as a means of meeting budgetary targets. (Paragraph
85)
23. We recommend that, if regulatory budgets
are adopted, and subject to the outcome of any review on independent
scrutiny, Government Departments provide relevant data in their
Annual Reports as a means of providing proper scrutiny. We recommend
that Departments begin already to focus on their plans for post-2010.
Whatever the nature of the then Government, there will be a need
for further progress in regulatory reform. (Paragraph 86)
24. In November 2006, the Davidson review
reported on the issue of gold-plating and other over-implementation
of EU legislation, and concluded that although instances of gold-plating
could be identified, its overall incidence was not substantial.
We welcome the fact that it is now a requirement of impact
assessments that they contain an indication of whether gold-plating
is occurring, and require it to be fully justified. We welcome
the Minister's confirmation that, if regulatory budgets are adopted,
they will include EU legislation. (Paragraphs 87 and 88)
25. We recommend that the BRE prioritise how
to increase its influence in achieving regulatory reform at the
EU level. We recommend that the BRE undertake a feasibility study
of where it would like EU regulatory reform to be from the UK
perspective, where the resource gaps are in getting there, and
how to remedy them. Subject to the outcome of any such study,
it might wish to consider having permanent independent representation
in Brussels. (Paragraph 91)
26. We recommend that Better Regulation Ministers
within Government Departments keep the flow of legislative reform
orders under review and take every opportunity to use them to
their fullest extent. We recommend
that legislative reform orders be used primarily for their intended
purpose of reducing burdens and improving regulation, and that
steps be taken to improve the preparation of primary and secondary
legislation to avoid the need for corrective legislation shortly
after the passage of an originating measure. We further recommend
that the Government establish proper mechanisms for prioritising
and managing the flow of legislative reform orders. In addition,
we recommend that we receive periodic updates of the measures
that are intended to be reviewed via primary legislation, by way
of a copy of the BRE's schedule of such information. (Paragraphs
93 and 94)
27. We recommend that a cost/benefit analysis
of the retail enforcement pilot be undertaken. We further recommend
that the BRE and the Department of Work and Pensions consider
conducting a pilot study on simplification of processes to consider
where and how decisions on benefit awards might be capable of
delegation to local offices without the need for data collection,
and that the results of that study be shared with other Departments
as a potential model for rationalising data collection. (Paragraph
98)
Conclusions
28. We agree that the challenge for the BRE
is in better measurement of progress and accountability and in
showing how activities are contributing to major desirable changes.
We recommend that the BRE focus its attention on delivery of
current objectives and on setting clear future objectives and
measuring against them. (Paragraph 100)
29. We believe that, in its short lifetime,
the BRE has made a significant contribution to improving the UK's
regulatory environment on the basis of a demanding agenda. Its
major challenges are to maintain strategic focus-particularly
if the new programme of regulatory budgets is adopted-and to ensure
that there is proper quality control and measurement of deliverables
against clear targets, including in relation to burdens reduction
figures. It needs, too, to be rigorous in assessing its own performance,
to focus on improving perceptions, and to look at improving some
of its internal operating procedures as we have suggested. (Paragraph
101)
