The Regulatory Impact Assessment Bill - Clause 1 and Clause 2

Mr. Chope emphasises the importance of regulatory impact assessments to ensure that legislation undergoes proper scrutiny and cost-benefit analysis before introduction, highlighting examples where such assessments were lacking or non-existent.

[INTERVENTION] Mr. Davies questions how the Government should proceed if a cost-benefit analysis shows that costs outweigh benefits, despite previous instances of such legislation being pushed forward.

Ms McVey supports reforming the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 to introduce democratic checks and balances for future emergencies. She argues that robust benefit-cost analyses should have been conducted before implementing lockdowns, highlighting that experts predicted dire consequences and that over 200,000 lives could be lost due to such measures as reported by the Government in July 2020. Ms McVey emphasises the importance of parliamentary oversight and proper scrutiny before implementing far-reaching measures, advocating for a review process after seven days if immediate action is necessary.

Welcomes the Bill as it gives Parliament more power to scrutinise government actions. Criticises the lack of impact assessments in recent policy decisions, particularly regarding housing illegal migrants at RAF Scampton and HS2 infrastructure project, arguing these decisions lack transparency and accountability.

Intervenes to ask Edward Leigh for clarification on his statements regarding HS2. Questions whether there has been an impact assessment of revised proposals and highlights concerns over delays in the restoration and renewal project.

Intervenes to express concern about the lack of scrutiny during the HS2 project, citing a significant increase in costs from £36 billion to potentially £180 billion. Also raises worries about a potential inferior Chamber if there is a full decant for restoration and renewal.

Philip Davies is conflicted about the proposed bill, acknowledging its apparent simplicity but raises concerns. He cites examples such as the Climate Change Act and HS2 to argue that cost-benefit analyses are often manipulated or ignored by politicians, undermining their effectiveness. He fears giving more power to unelected bodies like civil servants who might produce biased analyses. Davies believes MPs should hold government accountable without needing this legislation.

Mr. Madders thanked the hon. Member for Christchurch for introducing the Bill and highlighted the importance of accountability in government decision-making, citing a Lords report from October 2022 which criticised the decline in quality of impact assessments provided with secondary legislation due to Brexit and the pandemic. He emphasised that during the early stages of the pandemic, many public health regulations lacked adequate impact assessments or supporting information. Madders argued for waiting on an inquiry's findings regarding government decision-making but also stressed the need for robust parliamentary questioning of the Government when appropriate opportunities arise. He cited a House of Lords committee recommendation stating that late publication of impact statements could undermine policy quality and noted that while his party supported the Government during the pandemic, there was often a lack of supporting evidence for some policies. Madders suggested that instead of the Bill's proposed solution of bringing Ministers to Parliament every three days, it would be better for Parliament itself to object or vote against legislation without sufficient impact assessments.

[INTERVENTION] Ms. McVey questioned whether Mr. Madders agreed with the need to change the 1984 Act to ensure full parliamentary scrutiny before implementing lockdowns.

[INTERVENTION] Mr. Hollinrake asked if Mr. Madders thought his party was wrong to call for longer lockdowns without cost-benefit analysis.

[INTERVENTION] Ms. McVey pointed out that despite Mr. Madders' criticism of insufficient answers for rules like the six-person limit and 10 pm curfew, he still voted in favour of them.

[INTERVENTION] Mr. Chope asked Mr. Madders what he thought should be the sanction for failing to ensure that the system works.

Mr. Hollinrake argues that the Government is already committed to proper policy assessment, highlighting recent reforms such as the better regulation framework which considers impacts before legislation drafting. He notes ongoing regulatory reforms like revising EU employment law and smart metre roll-outs.

Chope praised the debate and acknowledged the Minister's knowledge on the subject. He emphasised the Labour party's support for proper scrutiny and good legislation, citing an example from the Public Health Act. Chope also mentioned Lord Sumption’s phrase about constraining government powers to prevent despotic behaviour.