188体育

The Regulatory Policy Committee assesses the quality of Government Impact Assessments (IAs) and Post Implementation Reviews (PIRs). We publish our opinions on IAs/PIRs when the IA/PIR is published.

Since late 2020 (when we started using a new format), RPC opinions have offered views on the overall fitness-for-purpose of the IA, whether the Department鈥檚 estimate of the direct costs of the measure and the assessment of the impacts on small and micro businesses are fit for purpose or not; and ratings for the quality of the assessment of: 鈥榬ationale and objectives鈥�, 鈥榗ost-benefit analysis鈥�, 鈥榳ider impacts鈥�, and 鈥榤onitoring and evaluation鈥� (these are rated either 鈥榞ood鈥�, 鈥榮atisfactory鈥�, 鈥榳eak鈥� or 鈥榲ery weak鈥�).

Similarly, PRC opinions on PIRs comment on the overall fitness for purpose as well as quality ratings for 鈥榤onitoring鈥� and for 鈥榚valuation鈥� (using the same rating scheme).

While these ratings and quality assessments are already in the public domain, they sit in individual RPC opinions, and it is therefore difficult to see trends in the data and to compare the performance of different departments. We have therefore decided to make available the attached spreadsheets that summarise the key information across all of our published IA and PIR opinions since we started using the current format.

We have added (February 2025) a spreadsheet summarising the cases where we have had to issue a statement of lateness. More information on these and links to all such statements can be found here.

We will update these spreadsheets periodically.