Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom

1. Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom Steven Murdoch Warsaw 14 October 2009

2. Background – UK Regulatory Reform • Regulatory reform not a new idea in the UK – goes back over 20 years. • Deregulation Unit established by Margaret Thatcher mid 1980s • Focus on reducing/avoiding costs to business resulting from Government actions • “Better Regulation” since 1997 • Refocusing of agenda to consider benefits of regulation, as well as costs, to business, citizens, charities and the public sector

3. The Better Regulation Executive • Established 2005 – “Making Life as Simple as Possible”: • Simplifying existing regulation (the stock) • Minimising the burden of new regulation (the flow) • Improve the perception of regulation and achieve culture change in inspection and enforcement of regulation • Influence Europe

4. What is an Impact Assessment? • A continuous process to help policy makers think through and understand the consequences of possible and actual Government interventions • A tool to enable the Government to weigh and present the relevant evidence on the positive and negative effects of such interventions • To allow stakeholders to challenge policies and proposals, and the estimated costs and benefits • To identify policy option that best achieve objectives while minimising costs and burdens

5. Impact Assessment - Overview • Impact Assessments required since mid 1990s (Cost Compliance Assessments since the late 1980s) • IAs compulsory for most proposals • causing or redistributing costs in the private and third sectors; • all proposals causing costs in the public sector – above a threshold. • IAs part of the consultation process • partial IAs accompanied public consultation documents. • BRE responsible for overall system. Recently changed process to improve options analysis, use of quantitative and economic analysis of costs and benefits and to improve departmental responsibility for quality control • System has achieved high recognition across Government - 100% compliance.

6. Impact Assessments-When are they needed? • When Government regulatory proposals: • impose or reduce costs on business / third sector • affect costs in the public sector, unless the costs fall beneath a pre-agreed threshold (generally £5m) • involve a redistribution (eg an exchange or 'transfer' of costs or benefits from one group to another) • involve a change in administrative costs • seek collective agreement for UK negotiating positions on EU proposals • submit bids for primary legislation to the Legislative Programme Cabinet Committee

7. When should an Impact Assessment be published? • when a proposal is taken out to public consultation • when a Government Bill, or Private Members Bill enjoying Govt support, is introduced in either House • when a draft Statutory Instrument is laid in Parliament • immediately prior to implementation of an Act or Statutory Instrument or other regulatory measure • review after the regulatory measure has been implemented

8. 1. Development 6. Review 2. Options 5. Implementation 3. Consultation 4. Final Proposal Impact Assessment in Policy Making

9. Impact Assessment – Main Features • Improved quality of economic and other analysis that underpins policy-making • Sharpened focus on policy rationale • More prominence given to costs and benefits • Stronger commitment to specify ex post review date • Integrated with the Standard Cost Model • Integrated approach maintained – Specific Impact Tests • Increase transparency of analysis • Fixed template • Improved Ministerial Declaration • Impact assessment part of consultation and final policy decision • Embed impact assessments at the heart of policy-making

10. Cover Pages of new IAs

11. Consultation Code of Practice • Seven principles of consultation: • Take place at a stage when there is scope to influence the policy outcome – creates an expectation at least that if there is consultation, final decisions have not yet been taken. • Normally last for at least 12 weeks – longer if necessary • Be clear about the process, what is being proposed, the scope to influence and the expected costs and benefits of the proposal • Be accessible and targeted at those the exercise is intended to engage • The burden should be kept to a minimum – not reams and reams of paper • Responses should be analysed carefully and clear feedback should be provided to participants following the consultation • Officials running consultations should seek guidance and share what they have learned from the exercise

12. Conclusion – Does IA Work? • National Audit Office Report, January 2009: • better quantification of impacts – 67% of IAs quantified costs, 60% quantified benefits • but, wide variations in the level of evidence provided – only 20% presented results of an evaluation of a range of regulatory options • not enough attention paid to compliance and enforcement issues • Overall, produces better policy outcomes – e.g. avoidance of unnecessary costs, unintended impacts, better informed

13. Use of Impact Assessment in the European Union Steven Murdoch Warsaw 14 October 2009

14. Why the Commission does IA….. • To help achieve key goals • Lisbon Strategy • Simplify and improve the regulatory environment • Minimise costs to business of regulation • Sustainable Development Strategy • Consider impacts of actions on environment, economy, society • Good Governance • Promotes early coordination and efficiency • Opportunities for stakeholder input and enhanced transparency • Can simplify and justify EU intervention

15. Commission IA - Chronology • June 2002 – Commission adopts integrated IA process • Since 2005 all items in the Commission’s Annual Policy Strategy and Work Programme are subject to IA • Autumn 2006 – launch of Impact Assessment Board • 2008 consultation on draft IA Guidelines • January 2009 new IA Guidelines published – several improvements

16. Commission IA - Background A Commission IA should include: • Problem Definition • Objectives • Policy Options • Analysis of Impacts • Comparison of Impacts • Monitoring & Evaluation

17. Content (1) • Problem definition • Why is there a problem? How extensive is it? • What causes it and who is affected? • Does the EU have a right to act (e.g. treaty article, subsidiarity issues) • Objectives • What are the desired impacts? • Are the objectives consistent with other EU policies or strategies (e.g. Lisbon, Sustainable Development)?

18. Content (2) • Policy options • Should examine 3-5 approaches (regulatory and non-regulatory). Options should include “No EU action” • Should look at possibility of doing less – streamlining and simplifying EU law • Screen options to see which can best meet the objectives (effectiveness, efficiency and consistency)

19. Content (3) • Impacts: • For all shortlisted options • Identify economic, social, environmental impacts • Identify who is affected • Assess in qualitative, quantitative and monetary terms (bearing in mind principle of proportionate analysis) • Compliance

20. Content (4) • Comparison of impacts: • Weigh up positive and negative impacts • Compare options in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and consistency • If possible, identify a preferred option • “IA is an aid to political decision making, NOT a substitute” • Monitoring and Evaluation: • Consider how this will be done (e.g. review after certain number of years)

21. Impact Assessment Board • Response to calls for external quality control body (or complete IA externalisation) • Senior officials from key IA policy areas • Appointed in individual capacity • Under direct authority of the President • Independent of DG influence • Secretariat based in Secretariat General • Draft IA submitted to IAB for scrutiny • At least one month before launch of Inter-Service Consultation • IAB examines and provides opinion and suggestions to lead DG • Lead DG responds • Possibility of resubmission request • Currently no right of veto

22. Impact Assessment Board Terms of Reference – what it looks at • Context and Problem definition • Objectives • Policy options • Subsidiarity • Analysis of impacts and comparison of options • Process and presentation of the Impact Assessment work

23. Commission’s revised IA guidelines • Increased scope of application (e.g. comitology proposals) • Greater emphasis on quantification and a requirement to justify any lack of quantification • Requirement for all key data (including admin burdens) to be included in the summary • Emphasis on consultation (go beyond minimum requirements when controversial or over a holiday period) • More data on member state and/or regional impacts

24. Possible criticisms of Commission IAs • IA not truly embedded into the policymaking process – drafted late in the process so more about justification? • No consultation specifically on impacts • Currently not much quantification and monetisation of policy options • Justification for EU action poor • Look and feel often very different with the important detail sometimes hard to find - a template setting out the key data would help bring greater consistency and transparency.

25. Conclusion – Is it working? • Sort of! • Fewer examples of “silly” regulation or unintended perverse consequences • More of an attempt to draft sensible, proportionate proposals • Impact assessment takes time to be accepted and fully integrated into public administrations • But, need for greater consistency across DGs, possibly through more effective policing by the Secretariat-General, at least in the short term

27. Questions….. Steven Murdoch Better Regulation Executive Steven.murdoch@bis.gsi.gov.uk Tel: +44 20 7215 0395

28. Case Study - Fruit for school children • Consumption of fruit and vegetables is declining • Obesity is a problem in more and more Member States • Four options considered to help children get more fruit & veg • Proposal based on option considered to have max effect: • free distribution of fruit & veg to children age 6-10, co-financed by the Community (50%, or 75% in convergence regions) • requirement on MS to develop an implementation strategy • networking activities • promotion of healthy eating • monitoring, evaluation, and best-practice exchange

29. Questions to consider Is the problem definition satisfactory? Are the options analysed appropriate? Have any plausible options been omitted? Does it set out costs, benefits and administrative burdens? Has a serious attempt been made to quantify the impacts of the options analysed (including different types of impacts e.g. on SMEs, public health, the environment? Do the benefits justify/outweigh the costs? Is the preferred policy solution justified based on the evidence? Do stakeholders agree with the impacts and was there sufficient consultation? Does the IA properly consider implementation issues?