...focuses almost solely on businesses, yet government departments and regulators are expected to use it to analyse impacts on CSOs as well. In our experience, this often results in under-identification...
...related to Grenfell are not subject to independent scrutiny and the associated business costs are not included in the BIT. While we understand that the government may not want to...
The Regulatory Policy Committee held an event at the House of Lords on Wednesday 24th January to promote the new Better Regulation Framework and the RPC’s role in it. Around...
...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...
...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...
...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...
Recent Comments