We have updated our guidance on cyclical and ad hoc reviews following a public consultation which ran from 8 February 2017 to 23 March 2017.
The purpose of the consultation was to clarify that the PRP may want to conduct a call for information when considering variations to the way that a regulator meets the recognition criteria.
We received one response to the consultation from IMPRESS.
The regulator was concerned to ensure that the PRP exercises its functions in a proportionate way. IMPRESS suggested some criteria to define when a call for information might be appropriate. Their proposed criteria included that the PRP, on receipt of a variation, should consider whether:
- the variation engaged one or more the Charter criteria;
- the call for information would be a genuinely useful exercise, or whether it would be too technical to generate any useful feedback;
- the recognised regulator had already conducted a thorough consultation the variation(s) and had taken any feedback into account.
We considered all of IMPRESS’ response. Most of the matters raised had already been considered at the time the guidance was drafted. However, we re-iterate our commitment to Better Regulations principles more explicitly in the revised guidance.
We agreed that the extent to which an approved regulator has already consulted, and the nature of that consultation, would influence the PRP’s decision to hold a call for information. This is now also reflected in the revised guidance on cyclical and ad hoc reviews.