By Vivienne Russell
1 July 2010
Whitehall’s method for assessing the likely costs and benefits of a particular policy is not robust enough, according to government auditors.
The National Audit Office this week said further improvements in the quality and use of Impact Assessments were needed to achieve value for money.
An NAO study, published on July 1, found wide variation in the quality of the assessments. Of a sample reviewed by auditors, over half had weaknesses and 18% were flagged as ‘red’ because they might not supply sufficient evidence to convince the reader that the right conclusion had been reached.
Ten per cent of assessments had not quantified either the costs or benefits of a particular policy intervention.
NAO head Amyas Morse said it was ‘fundamental to achieving good value for money that the standard of proof applied in Impact Assessments is high’.
He added: ‘Ministers need to be advised on the range of consequences and risk implied as fully as possible.’
Business minister Mark Prisk said the study highlighted the ‘pressing need for a change of mind-set in government’ when it came to regulation.
‘From now on, regulation must be the last resort,’ he said.
‘Impact Assessments will now play a greater role in the policy-making process, and will be required to provide robust and convincing evidence that any new laws and regulations being proposed are beneficial to the country, helping to promote growth and enterprise.’
1 July 2010
Whitehall’s method for assessing the likely costs and benefits of a particular policy is not robust enough, according to government auditors.
The National Audit Office this week said further improvements in the quality and use of Impact Assessments were needed to achieve value for money.
An NAO study, published on July 1, found wide variation in the quality of the assessments. Of a sample reviewed by auditors, over half had weaknesses and 18% were flagged as ‘red’ because they might not supply sufficient evidence to convince the reader that the right conclusion had been reached.
Ten per cent of assessments had not quantified either the costs or benefits of a particular policy intervention.
NAO head Amyas Morse said it was ‘fundamental to achieving good value for money that the standard of proof applied in Impact Assessments is high’.
He added: ‘Ministers need to be advised on the range of consequences and risk implied as fully as possible.’
Business minister Mark Prisk said the study highlighted the ‘pressing need for a change of mind-set in government’ when it came to regulation.
‘From now on, regulation must be the last resort,’ he said.
‘Impact Assessments will now play a greater role in the policy-making process, and will be required to provide robust and convincing evidence that any new laws and regulations being proposed are beneficial to the country, helping to promote growth and enterprise.’
