RPC Opinions
This page lists all the Regulatory Policy Committee's opinions.
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 see all our opinions, or search for a specific opinion, please go here.
All our red-rated (not fit for purpose) opinions since 2015 can be found here. Earlier (pre-2015) red-rated opinions can be found here
Where legislation reached Parliament without either an IA or opinion that should be published with it, we publish a statement explaining why. A list of such statements is here.
RPC opinions for the departments and regulators listed below (including now closed departments) can be accessed by selecting the department name:
-
Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU) - 2016-2020
-
Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC)
Opinion ratings
皇冠体育app guidance below will help you determine what our opinion ratings indicate.
For final stage IAs:
| Initial review notice (IRN) | Red-rating | Green-rating |
|---|---|---|
| 皇冠体育app 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. | 皇冠体育app IA is not fit for purpose following the department鈥檚 response to an IRN. 皇冠体育app 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. | 皇冠体育app IA is fit for purpose. 皇冠体育app RPC has no significant concerns or where some minor issues could be improved. 皇冠体育appre 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:
| Validated | Not validated |
|---|---|
| 皇冠体育app EANDCB figure in the IA is validated. 皇冠体育appre are no significant concerns over the quality of the evidence and analysis. 皇冠体育appre is sufficient analysis to suggest that the EANDCB is accurate to within 拢100,000. | 皇冠体育app EANDCB figure in the IA is not validated. 皇冠体育appre are significant concerns over the quality of the evidence and analysis; calculations or data may be missing or not verifiable. 皇冠体育appre 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.
皇冠体育app RPC used to issue amber-ratings however these have since been replaced by just green or red opinions.