Contents

• Preface
• Executive Summary
• Glossary of acronyms
• Chapter 1
• Developments and influences since first report
• Introduction
• Developments and influences
• Implications
• Role of ILGRA
• CHAPTER 2
• Results of initiatives during the last two years
• The Development of More Consistent Approaches and Methodologies
• Sub-group on Risk Assessment and Toxicology
• Sub-group on the Setting of Safety Standards
• Enhancing the UK's Effectiveness in International Negotiations
• Improving the Way the Government Communicates About Risk
• Sharing Knowledge, Resources and the Results of Research on Risk Issues
• Identifying, Commissioning, Financing and Steering Research Projects
• CHAPTER 3
• Towards future progress
• Building Trust
• Encouraging Departments to Describe their Frameworks for Decision-making
• Clarifying the role of Experts in the Decision Making-process
• Developing a Consistent Policy on a Precautionary Approach
• Risk Communication
• Developing and Improving Techniques for Ranking Risks
• Commissioning Further Collaborative Research
• Building up within Departments the Necessary Capability to Improve Cross-Departmental Co-ordination
• Conclusion
• Annex 1
• Summary of Collaborative Initiatives
• Summary of Departmental Initiatives
• Summary of International Initiatives
• Annex 2

Membership, Mission Statement and Terms of Reference of ILGRA

Preface

The Interdepartmental Liaison Group on Risk Assessment (ILGRA) is an informal committee of officials from all major Government Departments responsible for developing policy on, and promoting the practical application of risk assessment and risk management. Since the group first reported to Ministers in 1996, the trend for networking and co-ordination of policies across Departments and Agencies has accelerated. Moreover, the mechanism developed by ILGRA is fully in line with that trend.

This report presents an account of ILGRA's efforts over the past two years to stimulate more efficient and effective ways for regulating and managing risks. It does this by building on good practice developed within Departments and by improving the information base on issues that are common to many areas of Government.

Despite the gains that have been made in protection of health and safety and the environment, Government Departments and Agencies are being increasingly pressed for public explanations of the basis of decisions in these areas. Recent events have made it clear that though people want to be reassured about the food they eat, the air they breathe and potential risks to their health and safety, they do not want their freedom to be unduly restricted. They want to be free to choose if they wish. This requires good information consistently presented and good decisions by Government on issues where individual choice is not the only consideration. It is, of course, just such developments that led to the establishment of ILGRA.

In this report we describe the progress that we have made to help Departments improve their approaches to risk-management, and identify the areas that we need to concentrate on in future. These include the need for Departments to describe comprehensively their frameworks for characterising a problem, obtaining the necessary information to evaluate options to address it, and adopting decisions, while actively engaging stakeholders. Moreover, there is a need for Departments to improve the ways they communicate on risk issues, and to be clearer on the role of experts and on the uses and limitations of scientific and economic analysis in the decision-making process.

I would like to thank the members of ILGRA and its sub-groups for their many contributions which I believe have resulted in substantial progress on a wide range of issues. This report reflects their commitment. The compilation of the report has been undertaken by Jean Le Guen and Colleen Bowen of the ILGRA Secretariat. I would like to record the appreciation of the Group for their efforts.

Dr J McQuaid, CB F Eng
Chairman Interdepartmental Liaison Group on Risk Assessment.

back to top

Executive Summary

Risk issues are rising on the public agenda. Following on from the publication of its report to Ministers in 1996 on the use of risk assessment in Government Departments, Ministers agreed that ILGRA should continue work to develop consistent approaches to regulating risks and provide a second report on progress. This report:

• looks at developments since the first report was published and reaffirms the need for Government to have coherent and consistent policies for regulating risk and to ensure that appropriate mechanisms are in place for achieving this aim.
• describes the initiatives undertaken by ILGRA to promote greater consistency and progress achieved so far (summarised in Annex 1).
• identifies priorities for the future and sets out an agenda for further work.

Chapter 1 sets out developments and influences since the last report.
Changes such as globalisation of the economy, developments in science and technology and attitudes towards regulation and governance are influencing public attitudes towards risk. This has led to an increasing expectation from the public for regulators they can trust to protect their interests and for greater openness and stakeholder involvement in decision making. However, demands for more consistency and transparency in the ways Departments use risk assessment in decision making is exposing weaknesses in current systems which need to be addressed. As a result, it is becoming increasingly untenable for Departments to adopt a narrow outlook on the risks they manage. ILGRA provides a much needed forum for taking forward these issues.

Chapter 2 describes the results of work undertaken during the last two years, including:

• A series of case studies on standard setting based on environmental regulation but relevant to all Departments. The results demonstrate the importance of: clarifying the role of expert groups, ensuring that standards adopted reflect the values of society at large and the need to adopt an appropriate approach towards dealing with uncertainty and options appraisal.
• A study on the UK's effectiveness in international negotiations involving risks. This has confirmed that greater consistency between Departments could not only strengthen the UK's position in international negotiations, but would also bring benefits in terms of more constructive debate within Government, better prioritisation and better communication.
• A project to improve the way Government communicates about risk. While good practice exists, risk communication needs to be integrated more fully into the development of policy. Good practice guidance, incorporating four simple but effective principles, is now available for use by all Departments to benchmark and improve what they do.
• A review of risk assessment practice and research priorities in the field of toxicology .
• A number of collaborative projects of mutual interest to Departments on, for example, the valuation of the benefits of health and safety measures, risk ranking and expert judgement in decision making, and other initiatives to share data and information across departments.

Chapter 3 sets out the action required for achieving greater coherence and consistency among Departments.
The report identifies the need to build trust as essential to obtaining public acceptance of risk management decisions. This in turn requires Departments and their Agencies to have consistent, fair and transparent approaches to decision making which reflect the values of society. As a result, the report seeks Ministerial endorsement of ILGRA's future priorities which will concentrate on:

• Encouraging Departments to describe the frameworks or procedures they use for reaching decisions on the risks for which they responsible.
• Clarifying the role of experts in assessing risks with a view to opening up scientific advice to wider scrutiny, exposing uncertainties and enabling stakeholders and experts to contribute appropriately to the decision making process.
• Ensuring that the use of precautionary approaches are consistent, reflect the principles of good regulation and are compatible with policies on competitiveness, innovation and sustainable development.
• Improving the way Departments communicate about risk by disseminating, encouraging and evaluating good practice and finding ways to illustrate the multifaceted nature of risk.
• Ensuring that ILGRA continues to reinforce cross departmental co-ordination, identifying and filling gaps in knowledge through collaboratively funded work and research.

These measures will require a strong commitment from Departments in order to ensure progress. This will be the subject of a fuller report to Ministers in two years time.

back to top

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

BBSRC	Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
BRU	Better Regulation Unit
BSE	Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
CAA	Civil Aviation Authority
CBA	Cost Benefit Analysis
DETR	Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
DH	Department of Health
DTI	Department of Trade and Industry
ESRC	Economic and Social Research Council
EA	Environment Agency
EC	European Commission
EU	European Union
FAO	Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
HMT	Her Majesty's Treasury
HO	Home Office
HSC	Health and Safety Commission
HSE	Health and Safety Executive
ILGRA	Interdepartmental Liaison Group on Risk Assessment
IPCS	International Programme on Chemical Safety
MRC	Medical Research Council
MAFF	Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
MoD	Ministry of Defence
NERC	Natural Environment Research Council
OPS	Office of Public Service
OECD	Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PSD	Pesticides Safety Directorate
RATSC	Risk Assessment and Toxicology Steering Committee
SSAS	Sub-group on the Setting of Safety Standards
UNCED	United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development
VMD	Veterinary Medicines Directorate
WHO	World Health Organisation