Better Regulation for Better Health

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

This project is about how policy-makers balance the protection of health with the need to encourage economic growth by reducing burden on businesses. Governments address this balance through a set of mechanisms known as Better Regulation (BR). The project asks whether BR is undermining health regulation in the EU and the UK and what can be done about this. Most European governments have BR programmes which try to reduce the volume and burden of their legislation, and many face opposition for civil society organisations (CSOs), concerned that this might threaten health protection. The first part of the project focuses on the EU, where there is evidence that corporate interests, such as big tobacco companies, had a role in the design of the Better Regulation Agenda (BRA) and anticipated that it would help them to weaken anti-smoking rules. The BRA applies to all EU policies so the potential damage of an unbalanced process is significant. However, a number of things are not known for certain:- The extent of the problem - exactly what impact (positive or negative) on health is being seen as a result of the BRA?- Why it is happening - what part of the BRA is causing the problem? Is there an issue with the kind of scientific evidence used, or the actors involved, perhaps?- How is this related to broader pressures to deregulate and oblige big business?The first stage of the project seeks to answer these questions and, in doing so, to change the way in which the BRA works. It focuses on a particular element - a process known as REFIT (Regulatory Fitness), in which existing laws are reviewed to make sure that they do not present an undue burden for business. It will use four case studies; pieces of law which the EU has chosen to improve using REFIT. CSOs will help to choose three of these but the fourth will be the REFIT review of the Air Quality Directives. Taking these as an example, the project will:1. Develop the analytical framework. How will we know if the air quality rules have been weakened? How can we measure this? 2. Build the dataset. We will gather all documents from the review of air quality law, interview key people involved and construct a map of how the process worked. 3. Analyse the data. Using our analytical framework, we will assess whether the review has strengthened or undermined health objectives, how this has happened, and how this relates to broader policy patterns.4. Build capacity and share knowledge. Throughout the project, we will train CSOs interested in air quality and health, share what we have learned, and promote change in the BRA. In the second phase of the project, these steps are replicated at the UK level, looking at the UK's BR programme. This will involve engaging in debates about the UK's rapidly changing regulatory framework as its links with the EU continue to evolve. By the end of the project we will (a) know how BR has affected health, (b) have built CSO capacity for involvement in future reviews, and (c) have established a network of actors working for the improvement of health regulation in the EU, UK and beyond. To be sure that the project reaches the right audiences, two organisations with experience in BR in the EU (the European Public Health Alliance) and the UK (New Economics Foundation) will be closely involved. Their extensive network of CSOs and policy-makers will help the project to reach a wide audience of actors who can shape the way in which BR works and what it achieves. This change is urgently needed; improving laws and policies is not a new idea but, in the aftermath of the economic crisis, governments have renewed their efforts to simplify regulation and cut red tape. Moreover, as the UK adapts its changing relationship with the EU, the form of BR that it adopts will impact upon the 'health' of UK public policies. This project provides the tools to ensure that such reforms are designed to strengthen health policy, not undermine it.