My SOP and Checklist for Public Consultation Submissions

by
Below is my SOP and checklist for preparing a Commission Better Regulation public consultation submission.
This seems like a lot of work. It is.
You may as well get this right at the start. If you don’t, you’ll be scrambling around for data and evidence to support your case in front of the MEPs and Member States.
And, if at the start you know you don’t have a strong case, you can set expectations on the chance of success at the right level – low.
SOP
  1. Put your thinking down on paper. It will improve the clarity and quality.
  2. List each point clearly and concisely.
  3. Do you have credible and objective evidence to support your conclusion.
  4. If your answers start to sound like a MOD character from Thank You for Smoking, or you are using Dr. Ernhardt Von Grupten-Mundt as your chief expert, stop and reconsider if you want to go on.
  5. Discuss your input with the Commission Services.
  6. Don’t approach the RSB.
  7. Do you have time prepare the submission.
  8. Are you clear on sign off on the response.
  9. Do you have people on staff experienced in preparing successful / persuasive submissions.
  10. Do you have experts in preparing the evidence needed on staff or commissioned to submit the evidence in on time.
My 37 Point Checklist
  1. Do you know who is going to read the submission (e.g. the Task Force/ISSG)
  2. What answers are they looking for? Have you provided them.
  3. Do they trust you.
  4. Do you know the real timetable for the initiative.
  5. Do you have experts in preparing the evidence needed on staff or commissioned to submit the evidence in on time.
  6. What data and evidence (studies) do you have available
  7. Does the data and evidence support your preferred policy solutions.
  8. Do you plan to submit the information to the public consultation on time. In practice, this means earlier than the deadline. If not, consider if you should go froward.
  9. How will you will visually present your information, e.g. spark graphs, tables, visuals.
  10. Do you understand why the Commission is launching the initiative.
  11. Do you understand the broader background. Have you listed the political and legal background, e.g. Mission Letter, Political Guidelines, Work Programme, European Council Conclusions, Council Conclusions, EP Resolutions, Communications.
  12. Has the EU acted in this area before. What was the result.
  13. Does this action contribute to a Sustainable Development Goal – and if so , how.
  14. What other actions are the EU or Member States taking in this area.
  15. Who is impacted by the problem. Why and what is the extent and nature of the problem (e.g. human health, environmental harm).
  16. Has there been an evaluation or report by the Court of Auditors? What did it say?
  17. If there is a problem, what is causing it, e.g. regulatory, lack of implementation, market failures. List the evidence.
  18. Is the problem an isolated one, a local and not an EU one.
  19. Is there a legal basis for the EU to act.
  20. What is the evidence for the EU to act, or not act.
  21. What trade offs are involved if action is taken.
  22. What are the costs of action/ inaction.
  23. What are the reasonably foreseeable ‘unintended consequences’ from action/inaction.
  24. Have Member States /other countries taken action. What happened there, and what lessons can be learned .
  25. List your preferred action and explain why it would benefit the EU
  26. What are the economic, social, and environmental benefits of your preferred approach
  27. What non-legislative and non-regulatory measures could be taken to address the issue, e.g. voluntary agreements.
  28. What impacts will there be on competitiveness and SMEs from any action and your preferred approach.
  29. Is the option workable. Can it be effectively monitored and enforced.
  30. Specify if your data is real or modelled. Detail the model.
  31. Make sure your data is verifiable and available in the public domain.
  32. List costs and benefits of actions, ideally by using the Commission’s own model.
  33. Replicate the Commission’s competitiveness check and detail any positive or negative impacts of action and your preferred approach.
  34. Compare how other countries address/regulate/legislate on this issue. What lessons can be drawn.
  35. List the impacts (positive or negative) any differentiated approach would have on EU companies.
  36. Do your responses come across as politically sane.
  37. Are they clear – you don’t need a post-doc from MIT to understand them.