Key questions affecting RPC scrutiny requirements

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
UK Approach to Transposition The Guiding Principles for EU legislation.
Advertisements

Rule-Making Book II EU Administrative Procedures – The ReNEUAL Draft Model Rules 2014 Brussels, May th Herwig C.H. Hofmann University of Luxembourg.
Agency Drafts Statement of Scope Governor Approves (2) No Agency Drafts: Special Report for rules impacting housing Fiscal Estimate.
TITLE OF PROJECT PROPOSAL NUMBER Principal Investigator PI’s Organization ESTCP Selection Meeting DATE.
Guidance for Year 06 Track 1.0 ART Program Continuation Applications Tedd Ellerbrock, MD Team Leader, HIV Care and Treatment, GAP, CDC Barbara Aranda-Naranjo,
Standards experts. Accreditation solutions. Andrea Spencer Coordinator, WTO/NAFTA Enquiry Point (Canada) SPS Workshop on Transparency, Geneva October 18,
Joint PPI Network Meeting Swansea - 10 October 2012.
Standards experts. Accreditation solutions. Andrea Spencer Coordinator, WTO/NAFTA Enquiry Point (Canada) TBT Special Meeting on Procedures for Information.
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANNING Charles J. Randel, 1 III, Howard O. Clark, Jr., 2 Darren P. Newman, 2 and Thomas P. Dixon 3 1 Randel Wildlife Consulting,
Tackling costs in new and existing regulation- the UK way Sarah Mitchell James Rees.
Better Regulation Executive Making regulation work for everyone Introduction to Regulatory Impact Assessment Claire Chaubert February 2007.
Implementing the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 2 Background The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612) requires Federal agencies to— –Consider the.
Documentation. Session objectives Define ‘good documentation’ To explain auditing standards on documentation To explain elements of documentation and.
Introducing Regulatory Impact Analysis into the Turkish Legal Framework “Training the Trainers” November 2008 RIA in the EU by Lydia Jørgensen, Senior.
Nwtboardforum.com For reference only. Not a legal document Inuvialuit Settlement Region.
Neighbourhood Planning Miles Thompson Shared Planning Policy Manager South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District Councils
THE FINANCIAL REPORTING WORKSHOP 25 TH AND 29 TH AUGUST 2014 HILLTON HOTEL, NAIROBI IAS 26 ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING BY RETIRMENT BENEFIT PLANS 1.
International Federation of Accountants April 28, 2009 Impact Assessment Process for IFAC Linda Lach and Alta Prinsloo.
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency Methodology and Responsibilities for Periodic Safety Review for Research Reactors William Kennedy Research Reactor.
Rulemaking by APHIS. What is a rule and when must APHIS conduct rulemaking? Under U.S. law, a rule is any requirement of general applicability and future.
Better regulation in the Commission Jonathon Stoodley Head of Unit C.1 Evaluation, Regulatory Fitness and Performance Secretariat General of the European.
Public Consultation Session: Consultation and Transparency Requirements for Offshore Petroleum Activities Francesca Astolfi A/g General Manager, Offshore.
AGRO PARKS “The Policy Cycle” Alex Page Baku November 2014.
Writing and updating strategic and annual plans Richard Maggs Astana September 2014.
Improving Compliance with ISAs Presenters: Al Johnson & Pat Hayle.
Phillipa Silcock Using and discharging conditions.
AEMCPresentation to GWCFPAGE 1 AEMC and Rule changes Presentation to AEMO Gas Wholesale Consultative Forum Kamlesh Khelawan Director This presentation.
Principal Investigator ESTCP Selection Meeting
RESPONSE TO THE FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Understanding your Budget, P&L statement and Balance Sheet
Conditional IRB Approval
Topics Wage and Hour Division (WHD) enforcement
Guide for setting up Framework Agreements
AUDIT LECTURE 7 EVALUATION AND REVIEW HOLY KPORTORGBI
Auditing & Investigations II
Auditing & Investigations II
FDA’s IDE Decisions and Communications
Principal Investigator ESTCP Selection Meeting
Walkthrough of Budget Forms and Process
COMPLETING THE AUDIT AND REPORTING RESPONSIBILITIES
Grid Code What is the Standard Modification Process? Panel
Gas default price-quality path reset 2017
BASIC IRRS TRAINING Lecture 17
Supplementary Table 1. PRISMA checklist
Tracking Progress for Building Efficiency Accelerator
Code Governance Review UNC Modification Proposals
Business environment in the EU Prepared by Dr. Endre Domonkos (PhD)
INTRODUCTION TO Compliance audit METHODOLGY and CAM
Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016
Outcome TFCS-11// February Washington DC
IESBA Meeting New York March 12-14, 2018
Community protection of geographical indications :
READ Act Reporting and Budget Planning
Preparing for NIH’s sIRB Review Requirements
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Preparations for post-2020 Impact Assessment European Commission Directorate General for Regional and Urban Policy Unit DGA Policy.
Involuntary Resettlement 0P 4.12: Planning Instruments
Colorado state university-pueblo policy and administration (PA)
Relationship between World Bank and Romanian EA requirements
TITLE PRESENTATIONDATE AUTHOR JOBTITLE.
Practice with Screening & Getting started with the Environmental Procedures Training Manual (EPTM) [SPEAKERS NAMES] [DATE]
Principal Investigator ESTCP Selection Meeting
Procurement Reform Bill & New EU Procurement Directives
The WTO-Agreement on Import Licensing
Presentation to Portfolio Committee on Arts and Culture
Principal Investigator ESTCP Selection Meeting
IRRS REFRESHER TRAINING Lecture 7
IAASB – IESBA Coordination Fees Proposals by IESBA
AUTO-ENROLMENT.
Presentation transcript:

Key questions affecting RPC scrutiny requirements What do the RPC need to see? The RPC will… Does the proposal qualify for the fast track? Is the proposal a ‘qualifying regulatory provision’? Is the proposal a ‘regulatory provision’ (as defined by the SBEE Act)? Does the measure require RRC clearance? Proposal Yes e.g. it relates to legislation. e.g. domestic measure that is not excluded Validate the EANDCB at final stage No Scrutinise consultation and final stage IAs e.g. EU with no gold-plating Confirm non-qualifying and indication of scale of costs e.g. it is a fee or charge) Not see the proposal e.g. the actions of a regulator. e.g. a domestic measure that is not excluded Validate the EANDCB e.g. regular casework The RPC will not see the proposal e.g. it is a fee or charge Key questions affecting RPC scrutiny requirements Legend / what to submit: (further information on expectations below) Validation assessment only Consultation and final IAs (including an EANCB at final stage) Confirmation of non-qualifying legislative proposal The RPC will not see the proposal

What needs to be submitted to the RPC? Validation IA only Consultation and final IAs (including an EANDCB at final stage) Confirmation of non-qualifying legislative proposal and indication of the scale of costs The RPC will not see the proposal The RPC will validate these measures at final stage. This will include changes by regulators, and some fast track measures . A proportionate assessment to be submitted to the RPC will include sufficient information to: support the estimated equivalent annual net cost to business (EANDCB), describe what the proposal is, the number of businesses affected and the impacts per business, and justify assumptions or data sources used. Does not need to be in the IA template – but if an IA is produced for other reasons it may be appropriate to use that IA. Regulators, for example, may have completed business engagement assessments that provide the necessary information. Full IAs will need to be submitted in advance of consultation and final policy clearance. This will include all significant regulatory proposals from departments requiring RRC clearance, whether a qualifying regulatory proposal or not. At final stage this will include the validation of an estimated equivalent annual net cost to business (EANCB). The submission to the RPC should include: A description of the measure, what business will need to do differently, and a summary of its anticipated impacts e.g. based on the likely costs and number of businesses affected. This should be no longer that three paragraphs in total and; A statement of which exclusion(s) the measure falls under, together with any justification as required. The RPC anticipate such submissions to be concise/brief, and have prepared a template to be used for these cases. Nothing will be submitted to the RPC, but the relevant policy clearance requirements still apply.

Qualifying regulatory provision ‘Type’ of measure Size Legal requirements Additional administrative requirements? What do the RPC need to see? What does this require Qualifying regulatory provision Over £1m cost Verification of impact Government departments – scrutiny of proposal prior to consultation agreement Government departments - IA at consultation and final Government departments - Full IAs at both stages. Regulators – nothing Regulators - validation assessment at final stage Regulators - A proportionate assessment with sufficient information describing what the proposal is, the number of businesses affected and the impacts per business, and sufficient information to support the appropriateness of assumptions or data sources used. Must include an EANDCB. Under £1m cost or deregulatory None Validation assessment at final stage A proportionate assessment with sufficient information describing what the proposal is, the number of businesses affected and the impacts per business, and sufficient information to support the appropriateness of assumptions or data sources used. Must include an EANDCB. Does not need to be in the IA template. Non-qualifying regulatory provision Confirmation of non-qualifying status Government departments – scrutiny of proposal prior to consultation agreement; and verification of costs Government departments - Full IAs. Including an EANDCB Regulators - nothing Regulators – nothing* Under £1m cost Government departments - Sufficient information to confirm status and low value Government departments - sufficient information to confirm non-qualifying status and an indication of the likely volume of businesses affected and scale of change. The RPC anticipate such submissions to be concise/brief, and have prepared a template to be used for these cases. Regulators – nothing* Not a regulatory provision Over £1m cost fees and charges Nothing Government departments – scrutiny of proposal prior to consultation; and Under £1m cost / beneficial fees and charges and all others * - the RPC will review regulators’ NQRP summaries that are submitted on a voluntary basis to provide assurance that NQRPs have been correctly classified