One feature of the recent party conferences was the emphasis placed on values. The Chamber asks a related question: what responsibility should politicians accept for the consequences of the policies they introduce?
Parties often share many of the same values; the real disagreement is usually about priority. Experience shapes those priorities. Someone who’s spent years in a trade union will naturally put workers’ rights higher up the list than someone in Sudbury who’s responsible for making sure the wages go out every month. Good intentions, however, do not exempt anyone from examining the practical consequences of the policies they introduce.
Max Weber drew a useful distinction more than a century ago. Politicians, he argued, needed both an ethic of conviction and an ethic of responsibility. Ethic of responsibility demands that they own the results of their decisions and adjust course when the evidence changes.
Another problem arises when a policy gets promoted to the status of a sacred value. Then any attempt to adjust it looks like betrayal rather than common sense.
Politicians would no doubt argue that the Better Regulation Framework (BRF) ensures the consequences of policy proposals are adequately considered before legislation is approved.
The BRF requires an impact assessment for major legislation, which is checked by the Regulatory Policy Committee (RPC), an independent expert body. However, the RPC judged the Impact Assessment for the Employment Rights Bill as “not fit for purpose”. That red rating did not prevent the Government from proceeding with the legislation or Parliament from approving it.
An even clearer case was the 2019 decision to put net zero into law. The statutory instrument stated plainly that a full impact assessment had not been carried out. However, Theresa May’s government explicitly promised an assessment within five years of whether other countries had followed Britain’s lead, with the protection of British industry from unfair competition given as one of the reasons. And yet, no such review appears to have been carried out.
The Commons approved net zero, after just 88 minutes’ debate, despite the then Chancellor, Philip Hammond, warning that the transition could cost well in excess of £1 trillion. Babergh District Council spent longer considering parking charges.
Under the existing system, where an impact assessment is produced it has much the same status as an MOT advisory notice. The minister need only certify that it “represents a reasonable view of the likely costs, benefits and impact of the leading options”; there is no requirement to justify those consequences or explain why they are worth imposing.
The Chamber accepts different parties will emphasise different values but they should agree on standards and, in particular, accept responsibility for the consequences of their legislation. The Chamber suggests ministers should be required to explain to Parliament the principal adverse consequences identified in the impact assessment and why, despite them, they believe the policy should proceed.
New members welcome sudbury.org.uk
