RPC gives ‘red’, ‘not fit for purpose’ rating for two measures in Immigration and Asylum Bill’s impact assessment

The Regulatory Policy Committee (RPC) has given a 'red' rating to certain measures in the Home Office's impact assessment for the Immigration and Asylum Bill, saying it is "not fit for purpose" because the assessment does not provide sufficient analysis of the options or adequately justify the Government's preferred approach.

The RPC is an independent advisory body that provides expert advice to the Government to reduce unnecessary burdens on business and support economic growth.

In its opinion, issued last week and available here, covers the two measures identified by the Home Office in the Bill's impact assessment as having direct business impacts: measure 11 of pillar 3 on reform of the public interest test in relation to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and measure 16 of pillar 4 on changes to the modern slavery transparency in supply chains framework.

Measure 11, the Home Office says, is intended to "strengthen the public interest test to reset the balance between individual rights and the public interest in managing an effective immigration system and the social and economic well-being of the UK" by amending the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The reforms are intended to produce fewer Article 8 grants in cases involving immigration breaches and qualifying children, and a reduction in the proportion of Article 8 decisions overturned on appeal.

Measure 16 aims to strengthen the existing modern slavery transparency in supply chains rules, which require large organisations to publish annual statements on steps they are taking to address modern slavery. The changes would bring public bodies with budgets of £36 million or more into the scheme and set clearer rules on what organisations must report, when statements must be published and where they must be filed. The Home Office also proposes fines for organisations that do not comply, with the aim of improving the quality of reporting and increasing compliance.

While the RPC said the impact assessment adequately (IA) explained the rationale for the two measures, it gave a "red" rating for the insufficient identification of options. The opinion states: "The IA does not demonstrate how credible options were identified and narrowed to a shortlist using critical success factors. The small and micro business assessment is sufficient: measure 16 applies to businesses with turnover of £36 million or more, while measure 11 is expected to have a small familiarisation impact on legal sector businesses."

The Committee said the Home Office needs to demonstrate why the approaches chosen are preferable to credible alternatives.

It continues: "The assessment must be improved by using critical success factors to show why options were discounted, and why the short-listed options were considered most likely to meet the policy objectives. The IA does not need to provide extensive appraisal of every option, given the expected scale of the direct impacts from measures 11 and 16. Where the shortlist is limited to the do-nothing option and the preferred approach, the department should explain why other credible options were not suitable for further appraisal."

The RPC also criticised the wider quantification of impacts, giving the regulatory scorecard a "weak" rating. It stated: "Little of the appraisal is quantified and most impacts are recorded as uncertain."

The opinion added: "The business-impact estimates are not adequately supported: familiarisation costs for measure 11 are not quantified and the assumptions behind measure 16's costs are not sufficiently explained. … The department should quantify the measure 11 familiarisation costs, and estimate the net present social value of measures involving public expenditure and impacts on households, where proportionate."

As the Committee noted, its 'red' rating for the impact assessment is advisory and does not reflect the merits of the policy itself.