HC Deb 01 April 2003 vol 402 cc790-1
19. Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham)

If he will make a statement on the Government's progress with developing regulatory impact assessments. [105841]

The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander)

The Cabinet Office has a continuous programme of work with Departments to improve the quality of regulatory impact assessments. We published revised guidance in January this year and officials are promoting it with a series of seminars and workshops in Departments. RIAs provide a more open system of assessing the risks, costs and benefits of new legislative proposals.

Dr. Cable

I acknowledge the usefulness of those assessments in quantifying the costs of regulation, but does the Minister accept the criticism of the Better Regulation Task Force that too many of them are of very poor quality, as with the regulation of care homes; some of them have simply disappeared, as with the regulation of animal movements; and most of them are inconsistent and lacking in independence? How does he propose to improve the situation?

Mr. Alexander

The Better Regulation Task Force firmly supports the regulatory impact assessments as a tool to endeavour to help Government improve the quality of the legislation that is passed. That is why the BRTF has drawn to the attention of the National Audit Office in its annual report, "Champions of Better Regulation", a number of RIAs that it believes need to be of higher quality. That work continues and I believe will be a useful contribution to our better regulation endeavours.

Mr. Peter Pike (Burnley)

Is not my hon. Friend disappointed that the regulatory reform procedure is still not used by as many Departments as it could be, to remove unnecessary burdens?

Mr. Alexander

My hon. Friend raises an important point in terms of the scale of work that we are endeavouring to take forward to improve better regulation across Government. There is little better that I can do than to quote the recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report, which said: The United Kingdom is at the forefront of regulatory reform in the OECD. It has already made major improvements and has planned more".

Mr. Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge)

I welcome any steps to try to improve the quality and depth of regulatory impact assessments, some of which, I think we all recognise, have been lamentably superficial, but would the hon. Gentleman consider the case for a system of routine post-implementation audit of regulatory impact assessments and the costs actually imposed on business by legislation, so that we can generate a feedback to the process of pre-legislative regulatory impact assessments that might over time improve their quality?

Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)

I do not understand that.

Mr. Alexander

I have sympathy with the comments of my hon. Friend from a sedentary position.

We need to be careful not to create a structure that is too bureaucratic in order to reduce bureaucracy and regulation. However, the work that the National Audit Office is taking forward is important. I believe that it will strengthen the quality of the RIA procedures, and that is why I believe that the OECD is correct in recognising the strength of commitment of the British Government to this important area of policy.