Examination of Witnesses (Questions 500-508)
Mr Jim Murphy and Mr Ananda Guha
4 JUNE 2008
Q500 Baroness O'Cathain: Well done!
Mr Murphy: There are things on this better agenda
about better consultation which they have improved again, but
we can go further. We all could go further. The UK Government
could go further and better, of course we can, on consulting earlier,
consulting more widely, consulting in particular the smaller businesses.
Sometimes the consultation has only been with large businesses
and occasionally it has only been multi-national businesses. There
could be post-implementation assessment, whether the impact assessment
was a fair prediction of the likely impact, and therefore we would
know how to judge the validity of this year's impact assessments
by the accuracy of the impact assessment predications three years
ago. So all of those things. I think the pace of this change is
really very good, but it has to continue.
Q501 Baroness O'Cathain: Could I
ask a very simple question? On a rate of one to ten (one being
the worst and ten the best) where would you find each of those,
or where would you actually put them at the moment—better
law making, better regulation and impact assessments? In other
words, looking at the post-implementation of the impact assessments.
Mr Murphy: I think on better law making probably
seven. On better regulation observed—but there is so much
to that because, for example, Member States demand and the Commission
does things. The European Parliament demands and the Commission
does things. For effort, I think the Commission has gone in the
past five years from three to eight and a half. But the danger
is that we always blame the Commission and occasionally we have
to look in the mirror and say, "What about us?"
Q502 Baroness O'Cathain: I was coming
on to that, actually.
Mr Murphy: I will give us 10 out of 10! It is
a product of the demand to do things. It is an aversion to risk.
It is a "something must be done"-ism, and that is the
vocabulary and the dynamic of European politics. It is not just
in the UK, it is across the Continent. So I give them high marks
for effort and I hope that with that effort in three years, perhaps,
we will give them high marks for results as well.
Q503 Baroness O'Cathain: The only
one you have left out of that is the impact assessments.
Mr Murphy: I think it is too early to say. I
think it is probably too early to say.
Q504 Baroness O'Cathain: I see. That
is a really difficult area?
Mr Murphy: I think what they could do on impact
assessments more effectively is to say—and this is not easy,
it is difficult—"We think this regulation will cost
X amount." That is something across Europe. I think that
is something they could get much better at, monetising the likely
impact of the regulation. I think they could get much better on
that. Again, we all could, but that is certainly something the
Commission could get better at.
Q505 Lord Wright of Richmond: Minister,
could I just ask a very quick question, because the evidence we
have had revealed to us that there is a body which is supposed
to be an independent impact assessment assessor. I do not think
I have got the title right, but we discovered that far from being
independent, it is actually within the Commission. Have you come
across this at all?
Mr Murphy: Only in preparing for today!
Q506 Baroness O'Cathain: It is difficult
to know who is gamekeeper and poacher now!
Mr Murphy: My view, on the basis that I was
the better regulation minister and had not been aware of this
board until preparing for today, is that that says something about
me! I think Member States are really the important lever on this,
I think they really are, which is why it was important that seven
or eight of us got together in Prague a fortnight or so ago.
Q507 Chairman: Minister, on a technical/legal
level in relation to better law making, is there a case for some
sort of internal but nonetheless separate body of specialists
which reviews the quality from a legal viewpoint of proposals
as they are drafted, a law commission or a parliamentary draftsman's
department at the European Community level, because we have heard
that the basic drafting is actually done usually within the Directorate-General?
The legal department might cast a quick eye over it at a late
stage.
Mr Murphy: I have a relatively open mind about
that. If it fixes a genuinely identified problem, then we should
listen, but on the condition that they stop doing something else.
Q508 Chairman: We have seen proposals,
obviously, which we have found unsatisfactory in their drafting
quality, internally inconsistent or not thought through.
Mr Murphy: Ill-thought through—again,
a shared blame, the Commission and on occasion Member States.
But poor drafting—if your Lordships have a systematic assessment
of that having happened—of course there are instances where
it has happened, of course there are, but if it is a systematic
failure, certainly I am happy to listen to your Lordships' assessment
of that. In fact, on the basis that your Lordships have asked
the question, I will additionally reflect from the Foreign Office
as to whether that situation is getting better or not, but I would
happily listen to any further observations your Lordships have
on this. As to whether the solution would be along the lines you
suggest, I am not clear, but if you think there is a need for
further action and improvement in terms of the quality of the
people and the quality of the work, we would be happy to listen.
Chairman: Minister, and Mr Guha, unless there
is anything more you would like to say to us—and you have
the opportunity for afterthoughts—thank you very much indeed
for coming and for your time.
| 
