EUROPEAN MEP WORKING GROUP ON RISK-BASED POLICY MAKING
BACKGROUND
In March 2011 Chris Grayling, DWP Minister for Employment, asked Professor
Ragnar Löfstedt to conduct an independent review of health and safety regulations
to identify opportunities to simplify the rules and reduce burdens on business.
Professor Löfstedt’s report ‘Reclaiming health and safety for all: an independent
review of health and safety legislation’ was published in November 2011. As well
as making recommendations for the improvement and simplification of domestic
legislation, the Professor made recommendations for engaging with Europe. This
included the recommendation that:
‘a European Parliamentary Committee is established to look at risk based
policy making that could assist EU regulators and policymakers to regulate
on the basis of risk and scientific evidence’.
The Government Response accepted the recommendations of the report and, in
particular, agreed that there was a need for support for evidence-based policy
making in the European Parliament.
The EU Chapter of the Löfstedt Report was launched in Brussels on 30 November
2011. The launch event was sponsored by Liz Lynne MEP and Julie Girling MEP.
Following the launch, Julie Girling agreed to establish a cross-Europe working
group of interested MEPs in response to the Professor’s recommendation. The first
meeting of the working group took place on 5 September (see readout at annex A).
The group will meet thereafter on a roughly quarterly basis and will consider the
application of risk management principles to other policy areas. Professor Löfstedt
will provide a discussion paper for the initial event and – alongside other relevant
academic experts – will provide ongoing support to the working group.
Annex A
MEP WORKING GROUP ON RISK-BASED POLICY-MAKING
Note of launch event - Brussels 5th September 2012
Risk Policy and the European Dimension
Introduction
Julie Girling MEP welcomed attendees to the first meeting of the MEP Working
Group on risk based policy making and set out the objective of ensuring that policy
was made on the basis of robust, risk-based evidence rather than knee-jerk
reactions which unnecessarily stifled business. But it was vital that evidence
needed to be presented in an easy-to-use and trusted form.
Julie was supported by a panel consisting of Lord Curry (Chair, the Better
Regulation Executive) Professor Ortwin Renn (University of Stuttgart), Professor
Ragnar Löfstedt (King’s College, London), and Robert Madelin (Director General of
DG Information).
Lord Curry explained that his role at BRE was to challenge the quality of legislation
in the UK. He welcomed the opportunity to look at European legislation and ensure
that there were no unnecessary obstacles to business growth. UK measures such
as the Red Tape Challenge, One-in One-out, and the Focus on Enforcement
demonstrated the government’s commitment to reducing the burden of regulation.
It was recognised that some regulation was necessary, but it should be
proportionate, reflecting the approach now being taken for SMEs.
Professor Renn argued that an evidence-based and risk-benefit approach provided
the opportunity to compare and justify expenditure on different policy areas.
Robert Madelin asserted that, in an increasingly complex world, founding what
society does on an understanding of risk offered new opportunities e.g. a joined up,
cooperative and proportionate approach to threats such as pandemic and cyber
security. ICT could be used to support the risk agenda by providing tools to
understand and interpret risk and ensuring a participative approach.
Following introductory remarks, there was a lively and highly participative question
and answer session with the audience. Participants were generally supportive of
the risk-benefit approach to policy making, but a number of issues and concerns
were raised.
Summary of discussion
There is a multitude (at least 58) of different definitions of risk, and Professor
Löfstedt flagged that some countries do not have an equivalent of ‘risk’ or ‘hazard’
in their language, which can lead to different approaches to risk. Professor Renn
thought a generic definition e.g. ‘the probability of harm associated with an activity’
could be helpful. It was also suggested that a better definition of ‘benefit’ was also
needed. This could encompass issues such as innovation and growth as well as
safety.
The traditional definition of risk (likelihood versus impact) ignored risk distribution
and averages risk over everyone. However, the benefits and harm of a policy could
be different on different people. Risk perception varied from individual to
individual – the public were likely to be less concerned about risks within their
control (voluntary risks e.g. extreme sports, driving) than risks outside their control
(involuntary risks e.g. flying). Time factors could also come into play – a benefit
now could result in a risk later, and vice versa. The public has a strong sensitivity
to fairness. It was acknowledged that consideration of hazard could not be
removed from policy making. Risk analysis therefore didn’t give final decisions but
was an aid to decision-making.
Politicians react to public opinion which could prevent a risk-based approach - no
one wanted to be ‘caught’ taking risks with their constituents and there was often
an emphasis on being seen to do something. However, a hazards-based approach
could result in poor allocation of resources. Julie Girling suggested that, in some
circumstances, politicians needed to provide more leadership rather than simply
reacting to public opinion.
Professor Löfstedt described the ‘pet-risk’ phenomenon, where countries took a
risk-based approach to policies they liked, and a hazards-based approach to those
they didn’t. This could result in kudos in the home country but prevented an
international approach to risk.
There was a clear needed to get communication right – risk-based policy making
needed to be sold as responding proportionately and resiliently to issues, rather
than as removing controls or inactivity. Professor Löfstedt suggested the use of
trusted third parties to communicate policies. Professor Renn agreed on the need
to demonstrate societal benefits of new policies. At the same time, it was
important not to oversell or overpromise – this could result in public opinion being
undermined if something went wrong.
Health and Safety
An interesting second half featured an H&S workshop, chaired by Professor
Löfstedt, with some pointed questions from the audience. The Commission
acknowledged difficulties with social partner agreements, but held its ground on
MSDs, claiming it was taking a risk-based approach across the board.
Detail
1. The Commission (Silva) - the EU was a recognised world leader on H&S. All
legal proposals had published IAs. The Commission was considering reducing
the risk assessment documentation requirements for small businesses, but
more evidence was needed. Gold-plating was a problem, for example on the
issue of the external certification of risk assessments. We had to avoid
simplistic conclusions, and instead look carefully at detailed facts and figures.
2. HSE (Podger) – welcomed DG EMPL’s review intentions and offered support to
the group.
3. EAOSH (O’Brian) – the UK was a reference point for excellence in its H&S
record across the EU. A new and interesting phase was under discussion in
terms of strategy. Wanted to support the group’s work.
4. Ludhra – myth-busting was important. Risk-based H&S legislation was the
cornerstone of our society and economy.
5. FSB (Almond) – supported Lofstedt. Asked how the Ergonomics proposal fitted
in with risk-based policy making? How could social partners be encouraged to
use risk-based policy making?
6. The Commission – 60% of detected cases of work-related illnesses across the
EU were Musculoskeletal Diseases (MSDs). Still working on the
Musculoskeletal Diseases (MSDs) IA. Based on the analysis of risk factors, only
a small portion of risks were covered by prevention in the current legislative
system. It was a question of how to enlarge prevention measures to cover all
risks. Costs to business were a big issue and a difficulty.
7. The Treaty provided autonomy of the social partners in their agreements. The
Commission and the Council could only say yes or no; they could not make any
changes. It would analyse agreements from three angles: whether they were
representative; compliant with EU law; and appropriate. It could not produce an
IA for such agreements because an IA ranks options. Putting forward any
alternative option would be infringing the social partners’ power. Social partner
agreements were unique. On the Working Time Directive, social partners were
expected to have an agreement by the end of the year.
8. HSE – committed to solving the problem of MSDs, but legislation was not
necessary – the tools needed were already there. There was a need for Impact
Assessments (IAs) on social partner agreements, though he recognised there
were Treaty issues. It was a matter of principle – we needed to have
assessment of implications. We were entitled to know the burdens and benefits
in order to debate. H&S needed to be integrated into other studies.
9. EAOSH – integrating H&S into education was important.
Closing remarks
10. Vittorio Prodi MEP – we needed a risk-based approach. It was an objective tool
for policy development. Risk was the only way to quantify action, and the best
science needed to be used for the best legislation.
Next meeting: January 2013.