...would extend the benefits of independent scrutiny to increasingly important areas of government policy. It would do more to ensure that an evidence-based approach is taken to assessing the potential...
...to date there is little incentive to conduct them well or make best use of them If evidence is to be available to evaluate a regulatory measure properly, information needs...
Stephen Gibson (RPC Chair) and Andrew Williams-Fry (RPC Member) gave evidence to the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (SLSC) for its inquiry into the Government’s use of regulatory...
...to understand if departments had improved their impact assessments (IAs) in the interim. Stephen flagged that in 2023, the RPC issued ‘Initial Review Notices’ for around 40% of Final IAs,...
...there needs to be a clear mechanism for the Government and Parliament to take this into account in deciding whether to proceed with the policy – for example the Danish...
...taken into account when regulations are introduced. We the RPC exist to provide independent scrutiny at key stages of this process. Independent challenge and support of the sort we provide...
...PIR. Independent scrutiny of monitoring and evaluation plans in impact assessments would help to ensure rigorous, useful and proportionate arrangements are in place to track the outcome of the regulations...
...prior to full committee review. Depts have 15 working days to revise their assessment and have the opportunity to meet the secretariat to discuss the comments in the IRN. Following...
...to make ‘the best use of alternatives to regulation by introducing an earlier scrutiny point at which departments will be asked to justify their decision to regulate.’ More emphasis on...
...because they are ‘fit’ for different purposes. Domestic IAs are intended to inform regulatory decision-making whereas FTA IAs seek to provide a sense of thinking behind negotiations and the potential...
Recent Comments