A Labour minister has quietly confessed that the Government is not publishing impact assessments properly, sparking Tory claims they know their laws are ‘not fit for purpose’.
Last Wednesday, Labour peer Margaret Ritchie called out the late submission of regulator impact assessments, which set out the objectives of policy proposals including costs benefits and risks.
They are used to help ministers and parliament decide on the appropriate approach when trying to solve policy questions.
However research shows that in just five months of being in Government, Labour have been repeatedly publishing these impact assessments late, or being torn apart by the oversight body over the quality of the assessments.
Responding to Baroness Ritchie’s question, minister Margaret Jones admitted that since the election, the Cabinet Office has written to departments “to remind them of their responsibility to consider in their legislative plans the general requirement to make regulator impact assessments available when bringing forward relevant legislation to Parliament.”
This answer appears to admit that the Cabinet Office is aware of the problem, and has stepped in to sort out the shoddy practices by other departments.
Responding to the confession, Andrew Griffith MP told the Express: “The Labour Government has just admitted what we knew all along – their legislation isn’t fit for purpose.”
“Whether it’s stripping the winter fuel payment from 10 million pensioners, the family farms tax or the jobs tax, Labour can’t be bothered to check first the true impact that these policies will have on millions of people.
“Britain deserves better than a Government that doesn’t know, or care, about how much damage their ideological policies will have on its people.”
According to research, there have been 10 impact assessments published by departments only after the Bill was introduced to parliament in its first reading stage.
These included the Employment Rights Bill; the Renters’ Rights Bill; the Water Bill; the Mental Health Bill; the Football Governance Bill; the Data Bill; and the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (also known as Martyn’s Law).
Just last month the impact assessment for Angela Rayner’s flagship Employment Rights Bill was given a red-rated rating by the Regulatory Policy Committee.
The RPC said that Labour’s impact assessment for the Deputy PM’s Bill is “not fit for purpose”.
It suggested that the figures used for the financial impact may need “clarifying”, and that the cost of an agreement on adult social care pay may be “much higher” than the £1 billion DBT claimed.
Analysis published alongside the employment rights bill last month concluded that the legislation – a central plank of Labour’s promise to boost living standards – would cost businesses up to £5bn a year, with the effects concentrated in low-wage sectors.
But the RPC, an independent watchdog that scrutinises the evidence base for policy decisions, has said the government had not given enough evidence to justify eight of the measures contained in the wide-ranging bill, including some of the most controversial changes.
This meant the government’s assessment of the bill’s overall impact was inadequate, according to an assessment by the watchdog.
The RPC gave a red rating, meaning the analysis was not fit for purpose, to costings for the introduction of day-one protection against unfair dismissal, the repeal of anti-strike laws, a new right to guaranteed hours for workers on insecure contracts, and curbs on “fire and rehire” practices.
A Government spokesperson said: “It’s routine practice to recirculate this type of guidance, particularly at the start of a new Parliament, and it’s misleading to claim otherwise.”
“We have a packed parliamentary timetable to deliver our Plan for Change and rebuild Britain by the end of the Parliament.”
