|
Managing Risks to the Public: Appraisal Guidance
(HM Treasury, 2005)
What is it?
This is supplementary guidance to the Green Book, Appraisal
and Evaluation in Central Government. It provides guidance for developing
and assessing proposals that affect the risk of fatalities, injury
and other harms to the public in line with the Government's Principles
of Managing Risks to the Public [external website
pdf] openness and transparency; involvement; proportionality
and consistency; evidence and responsibility. The guidance also
contains a tool to help structure and make explicit the evaluation
of concerns that may exist about risks of fatality and harm.
Why is it important?
Government has a role to protect and reassure the public, which
includes taking cost-effective action to reduce risk, and to provide
accurate and timely information about risk. This guidance is designed
to help policymakers address certain risks that the public faces,
and also the public's perception of risk.
When should it be used?
The guidance is primarily for use at the agenda-setting stage
of the policy process, before the policy is adopted.
How does it work?
The guidance highlights a number of generic steps that will
need to be taken in the appraisal process. These are set out below
and discussed in detail in the guidance.
- Consider if there are good prima facie reasons for government
intervention (e.g. market failures or equity issues that should
be addressed).
- Carry out an expert risk assessment.
- Carry out an assessment of public concern (see Concern
Assessment Tool).
- Consider the extent of public involvement that may be required
during the appraisal and decision-making processes.
- Develop the decision-making process (including how to involve
the public) and make this publicly available.
- Consider the options available for addressing the hazards and
risks, and the concerns identified. Develop options which address
the reasons for intervention, the specific risks and hazards,
and the concerns identified in Steps 1 to 3.
- Assess the monetary costs and benefits of each option, expressing
these within ranges of uncertainty.
- Assess the non-monetary advantages and disadvantages of each
option (and consider other non-monetary issues).
- Develop an implementation plan, taking the best options in terms
of monetary and non-monetary considerations, and developing an
affordable and viable plan of action. Explain the basis of decisions
and make this publicly available.
- Implement, monitor and evaluate the implementation plan.
Example
There is considerable public concern about the perceived health
risks from electromagnetic fields (EMFs), such as exist around overhead
electricity power lines. The National Radiological Protection Board
(NRPB) is responsible for recommending guidelines for limiting exposure
to EMFs. There is a lack of scientific evidence about health effects
and a diversity of practices for control of the possible risk in
different countries. NRPB organised a public open meeting in Birmingham
in 2002 to consider public concerns with a view to providing input
to the development of proposals for limiting exposure. The meeting
was conducted under an independent chairman (Lord Winston) and attended
by stakeholders from a variety of backgrounds. The open discussions
were supplemented by a questionnaire survey of participants, to
establish what they valued about the meeting and its outcomes, administered
by NRPB's Radiation, Risk and Society Advisory Group. Feedback on
the lessons drawn by NRPB was provided to all participants and these
have been used in the recommendations on limiting exposures and
in reviewing NRPB's procedures.
For more information
Source
Back to Evidence-based tools index or
toolkit introduction
|
