We assess the quality of evidence and analysis used to inform regulatory proposals affecting the economy, businesses, civil society, charities and other non-government organisations. Our independent advice helps ensure that ministerial policy decisions are based on accurate evidence. Where we assess the impact of regulatory proposals, we provide advice in the form of opinions.
To search for a specific opinion, using the title of an IA, please use the Regulatory Policy Committee latest publications search bar here.
RPC opinions for the departments and regulators listed below can be accessed by selecting the department name:
The guidance below will help you determine what our opinion ratings indicate.
For final stage IAs:
|Initial review notice (IRN)
|The IA, as first submitted to the RPC, is not fit for purpose. If major concerns over the quality of evidence and analysis are not addressed after an IRN has been issued to a department, this could result in a formal red rating. IRNs contain informal advice and are, therefore, not published.
||The IA is not fit for purpose following the department’s response to an IRN. The RPC retains major concerns over the quality of the evidence and analysis, and the overall quality of the IA, that need to be addressed. Red-rated opinions are formal and are published once the corresponding IA has been published.
||The IA is fit for purpose. The RPC has no significant concerns or where some minor issues could be improved. There may be many points for improvement, which the department should consider. Green-rated opinions are formal and are published when the corresponding IA has been published.
For equivalent annual net direct cost to business (EANDCB) validation IAs:
|The EANDCB figure in the IA is validated. There are no significant concerns over the quality of the evidence and analysis. There is sufficient analysis to suggest that the EANDCB is accurate to within £100,000.
||The EANDCB figure in the IA is not validated. There are significant concerns over the quality of the evidence and analysis; calculations or data may be missing or not verifiable. There is insufficient analysis and/or the RPC believes that the EANDCB figure is inaccurate.
For consultation stage IAs:
We offer to provide informal advice, which is not published. If an IA is not fit for purpose at the consultation stage, we provide advice on: what must be addressed at the consultation stage; what must be addressed at the final stage; and what should be improved.
Consultation stage IAs may also follow the formal route, as for final stage IAs above.
The RPC used to issue amber-ratings however these have since been replaced by just green or red opinions.
Published 21 February 2019