The role of the reviewer

There are two aspects to the reviewer's role: assessing and assisting. Formal assessment of the final RIS is a mandatory requirement and represents the reviewer's core role. However, the reviewer can also provide assistance to the writer of the RIS, to help lift the quality of the final product. There are choices around the degree to which the reviewer gets involved in the earlier stages of the policy development process, illustrated in Figure 1 below.

These requirements apply to RISs that do not require assessment by RIAT. Agency reviewers may choose to review significant RISs prior to assessment by RIAT, and there are some benefits with this: it can identify and address issues with the RIS before it is provide to RIAT, and it may assist in agency capability building. However, it could also increase the time taken to obtain QA. This additional QA is therefore entirely optional.

Formal assessment (required)

The core role involves assessing the final RIS. Based on our experience, we strongly recommend that at least one iteration of the RIS is allowed for, meaning that the reviewer would provide comments on at least one draft of the RIS.

This applies to the RIS for final policy decisions, as well as RISs that are to be submitted to Cabinet to support any in principle or intermediate policy decisions. However the QA for interim RISs will need to be tailored to the circumstances, taking into account the stage of policy development, the nature of the decision being sought, and the level of analysis possible. At early stages of the policy process, it may not be feasible to prepare a comprehensive RIS, so the quality assurance will need to reflect these constraints.

Both the reviewers and the people responsible for the preparation of the RIS should be clear that the reviewer is concerned solely with the quality of the underlying analysis and its presentation in the RIS. The reviewer's role is not to assess the merits of any policy options considered in the RIS. That is, the reviewer does not have a view on whether the proposal is a good idea. However, they are concerned with the logic and argumentation presented in the RIS (the “convincing” criterion). In practice it can sometimes be hard to draw a firm distinction between the quality of the RIA/RIS and the quality of the proposal. But essentially the reviewer needs to determine whether Ministers have enough information, of sufficient quality, to make an informed decision.

Discussion documents (recommended)

The RIA requirements apply to discussion documents that contain options that may lead to legislative or regulatory change. While there is no formal assessment requirement, it is desirable that quality assurance is provided on draft discussion documents, to help ensure that they will meet the RIA consultation requirements, and provide the basis for a good quality RIS at the end of the policy process.

More detailed guidance on applying the RIA requirements (including the QA requirements) to discussion documents is currently being developed. In the meantime, RIAT is able to provide advice on a case-by-case basis.

Other assistance (optional)

Additional engagement earlier in the policy process can assist in lifting the quality of the analysis, and thereby the final RIS and ultimately the regulatory proposal itself. This assistance role can involve engaging at key points in the process such as:

• Providing advice at the outset of the policy development process on:
• The RIA requirements and how they should be built into the policy work, including suitable analytical frameworks and tools; and
• What the reviewer will be looking for in terms of the nature and depth of analysis and the extent of evidence on the problem, impacts and risks;
• Commenting on draft terms of reference for the commissioning of major pieces of analysis (such as cost-benefit analysis), to assist in establishing a suitable analytical framework; and
• Commenting on draft reports on major pieces of analysis.

Preliminary Impact and Risk Assessments (PIRAs) provide a trigger for early engagement.[2] Reviewers may find it useful to commence their engagement at the PIRA stage, to provide early assistance in shaping the quality of the analysis. The reviewer is not required to provide advice on whether the RIA requirements apply or on how to complete a PIRA, though they may choose to provide this role.

The reviewer should take care to ensure that they preserve the independence of their final QA opinion, by focusing on the nature and quality of the analysis rather than the features of the proposal.