Lack of policy scrutiny has become a worrying government habit which Labour needs to correct – Inside track

As we pass the first 100 days of the new government, many will be asking what impact it has had and whether it has measured up to its stated ambitions and public expectations. Invariably, there will be different verdicts. But how will the impact of the decisions made be assessed? For many, it will be about whether promised announcements were made on time. But impact can’t genuinely be known without knowing all the detail.

Policy measures are usually accompanied by an impact assessment, which helps those affected understand what they might mean. Impact assessments are also important as scrutiny tools for parliament and to shed light on the government’s rationale for its policy choices, as well as their costs and benefits.

Impact assessments have not been fit for purposeUnfortunately, impact assessments were often derided by recent governments, with tussles over when and, in some cases, even whether they would be published at all. This approach has eroded timely and effective scrutiny of government policy making.

The independent Regulatory Policy Committee assesses the quality of evidence and analysis used to inform government regulatory proposals. In 2023, the committee reported that there had been an alarming increase in the number of red rated impact assessments ie ‘not fit for purpose’. This included the Retained EU Law (Revocation & Reform) Bill. That bill raised major concerns for legislative certainty because of the potential overnight removal of thousands of important protections for many sectors, including the environment.

In addition, the committee found that 63 per cent of impact assessments were rated either ‘weak’ or ‘very weak’. It also highlighted a significant increase in the number of assessments submitted late to the committee, in some cases when the legislation was already before parliament. This meant parliamentarians did not receive independent advice on the robustness of the evidence supporting regulatory proposals until it was often too late to be meaningful.

But, instead of improving the quality and timeliness of impact assessments, the last government changed the goalposts on how impacts are to be assessed through its updated Better Regulation Framework. Under the new framework, the Regulatory Policy Committee is asked to provide advice at a much earlier stage in the process. This sounds like a good idea as it’s generally preferable to provide input at early stages before policies become fully formed. But, in reality, this approach is seriously flawed.

The flaw is that the Regulatory Policy Committee’s opinion will instead be sought on an ‘options assessment’, which is not expected to be published. As this will be before the government has agreed its preferred approach (by a process called collective agreement), the committee will not be able to publish its opinion and there will be no opportunity for any stakeholder input, making it an invisible process.

Rushing legislation through is risky and can be undemocraticThis will of course undermine transparency. While impact assessments are still expected to be published alongside final proposals, they won’t be subject to independent scrutiny. The committee’s opinion on the options assessment will be published alongside the impact assessment, but there may be a considerable mismatch between the two if the government adjusts its policy choice in the meantime, let alone the potential for a significant period to elapse between these stages.

Worryingly, the new government appears inclined to adopt the flawed Better Regulation Framework it has inherited. This jars with its wider approach to reset relationships and improve scrutiny and transparency. It should rethink.

The government has been moving at pace to implement the legislative measures it promised within the first 100 days, which has highlighted the potential pitfalls of policy making at pace.

Manifesto commitments and priority bills in the King’s speech have been earmarked for an urgent procedure which allows government departments to send an impact assessment to the Regulatory Policy Committee for scrutiny. That isn’t concerning, but it is alarming that several measures are appearing without an impact assessment and, therefore, without the independent check and balance provided by the committee.

In some cases, no impact assessment has been published before significant parliamentary debates. For example, none was published on the Water (Special Measures) Bill ahead of its second reading in the House of Lords, a point raised by several Peers. The minister said the impact assessment would be published “fairly soon”, which we can only hope means before the next stage of parliamentary scrutiny.

There have been other examples. No assessment was undertaken on the withdrawal of winter fuel payments from the majority of pensioners and no assessment has yet been published on the government’s flagship employment reforms announced on 10 October.

This matters. No matter how noble the policy intent, all legislative proposals touch our lives and have some impact on them. Publishing upfront impact assessments must, once again, become an automatic part of the democratic process of making and scrutinising laws.

The early weeks of new governments can set cultures and behaviours which endure throughout their tenure. Tardiness on explaining the impacts of new laws on people, businesses and the environment should not become one of them.