Scope of the inquiry
1. "Regulation is about a million small
details", the Executive Chair of the Better Regulation Executive
(BRE) told us when we visited the BRE offices on 10 June. Even
a cursory review of recent regulatory reform initiatives, however,
demonstrates that the devil can be in those details-particularly
when it comes to changing perceptions of regulation. We have therefore
taken the opportunity afforded by the expansion of the Committee's
remit to inquire into the BRE's work on the current regulatory
reform agenda and to ask whether the strategy adopted is getting
results.
2. Neither the BRE nor its predecessor the Regulatory
Impact Unit have been the subject of a previous parliamentary
inquiry. It seemed to us timely, therefore, to consider the BRE's
activities and to examine the Government's progress on regulatory
reform.
3. The inquiry's terms of reference were to assess:
- the extent to which the BRE
has developed a coherent strategy for implementing regulatory
reform;
- whether the BRE works effectively with other
areas of government to implement regulatory reform initiatives;
- whether the approach to measuring and reporting
on performance and outcomes is sufficiently robust; and
- whether the current approach to regulatory reform
is delivering genuine results.
4. For the most part, we have not attempted to
consider individual policies and regulations. Rather, we have
focused on strategic direction and on the specific subject matter
of the inquiry's title: whether the BRE and regulatory reform
are getting results. Similarly, we have not considered every current
initiative—particularly those that appear to be working
well, such as improvements in the quality of regulatory guidance—although
we take their success into account in assessing the overall achievements
of the agenda.
Acknowledgments
5. We received written evidence from 24 organisations
and individuals. We also held five oral evidence sessions. We
are grateful to all those who produced oral and written evidence
to the Committee. A list of witnesses is provided in Annex 1[1]
and a list of those who submitted written evidence is contained
in Annex 2.[2] The oral
and written evidence is published in a separate volume of the
Report. During the course of our inquiry we had the assistance
of the National Audit Office, to whom we express particular thanks.
We also thank the NAO for making additions to its 2007 survey
examining business perceptions of regulation in order to assist
our understanding.
6. In June 2008, we visited Copenhagen, Stockholm
and The Hague accompanied by our NAO adviser. The purpose of the
visit was to compare good practice in each of those countries,
and we gained many valuable insights. We are grateful to the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office posts for their help and hospitality,
and to each of the bodies and individuals visited for their openness
and willingness to share information and views. A list of the
organisations and individuals we met on our visit is contained
in Annex 3.[3]
1 See page 42 Back
2
See page 43 Back
3
See page 44 Back
