Better Regulation – A Primer

by

Better Regulation A Primer

 

Services like Blinklist look to summarise the key elements of a book into a short read.  I wanted to take advantage of a day off sick to write up a very condensed note on better regulation. I recommend using the Guidelines and Toolbox.

I get a lot of questions from lobbyists about Better Regulation. A lot still don’t think it is that important, or not important enough to read, let alone master.  They are like the modern day doctor who scoffs at the idea of using penicillin.

I recognize that too many Commission departments treat Better Regulation as novel and a passing fad. This group is steadily declining. They will be lost in the evolutionary struggle to modernity. In the next Commission, I expect they will become extinct.

 

I have drawn out key 5 elements for each area. It is just a primer and not exhaustive. You’ll have to read the relevant chapters of the Guidelines & Toolbox.

What is Better Regulation

  1. Evidence-based policy making
  2. Process to deliver better quality legislation and policy
  3. A system to consider second and third and order impacts from the very beginning
  4. A system to minimise duplication & unnecessary costs
  5. Involve stakeholders at an early stage

 

What it is not

  1. Deregulation
  2. Block, although a restraint,  on proposals being developed
  3. Restraint, but not a block, political intervention
  4. Restraint, not a block, on animal spirits leading to new proposals being tabled
  5. Political. It has benefited all sides.

 

Your Road Map

The first step  – Political validation

  1. 1st Vice President provides “political validation” before any Directorate-General (DG)l starts work on a “major new initiative”.
  2. DG writes a roadmap or inception impact assessment (in this case an Impact Assessment is needed)
  3. Sec-Gen publishes plain English text online (here).
  4. Stakeholders have 4 weeks to reply.
  5. You need an impact assessment when the measure is expected to have (1) “significant impacts” and  (2) where the Commission has a ‘political choice’ to make.

The second step – Impact Assessment

  1. The ISG (Inter-Service Group) prepares the Impact Assessment
  2. Considers all policy options
  3. Consider the practical feasibility of implementing the options & spell out impacts on innovation
  4. Quantity (to the extent possible) social, economic and environmental for the policy options
  5. Not a show trial where a DG or Commissioner works to make the facts support their preferred outcome

 

Step 3 – the Regulatory Scrutiny Board

  1. Do not lobby the Regulatory Scrutiny Board. Submit a first-class case and evidence during the Public Consultation.  Evidence-based policy making is what the label says it is.
  2. The lead Directorate General sends the draft Impact Assessment ( + executive summary and minutes) to RSB
  3. Documents sent at least 4 weeks before the meeting of RSB
  4. RSB review draft Impact Assessment against Better Regulation guidelines
  5.  Not a block on a proposal’s adoption. Even if 2 negative opinions the proposal can go forward for political adoption.

 

Step 4 – Inter-Service Consultation

  1. Check that feedback of the RSB incorporated into draft Impact Assessment and proposal
  2. Ensure that the Explanatory Memorandum  spells out how the  subsidiarity and proportionality tests were passed
  3. If no Impact Assessment, the Explanatory Memorandum will explain why
  4. Explain in the staff working document an implementation plan that explains how complex legislation will be implemented
  5. Take into account relevant REFIT reports

 

Step 5 – Public Consultation

  1. All feedback needs to be considered. A summary of feedback is prepared.
  2. Too many people think  “consider” is the same as “agree with”. If your case is weak and evidence not strong, it will be “considered” and discarded
  3. Stakeholders have 4 weeks (sometimes shorter and sometimes longer) to give feedback on roads maps and inception impact assessment
  4. Stakeholders have 12 weeks to give feedback on impact assessments
  5. Evidence rich submissions are needed, but too often not provided