An interesting discussion is going on within the UK government between the different components of the coalition. It is for us the opportunity to take stock again of the pros and cons of regulation (a well rehearsed discussion). The discussion seems liveliest in the environment sector, where the LibDem energy secretary has taken the "deregulation zealots" to task over their "Thatcherite" approach to regulation. A source said: "We are taking issue with this ideology that less regulation is inherently better. Regulation can be incredibly important. When the process comes to a head in the autumn, we are certainly not going to be letting regulations go. We will be fighting and we have quite a lot of ministers on our side."
The UK current approach to regulatory reform (see previous post for the "statement of new legislation") is interesting in that it appears to be perhaps the most energetic drive against red tape on record. Two main features give new life to old techniques:
- The consultation of the public via the Red Tape Challenge, a site which raises the standards for interactivity in consultation, and isworth the visit; currently targeted for feedback from the public: the "Equalities" legislation (preventing discrimination and ensuring equal opportunities);
- The reduction of advisory bodies, also called "bonfire of quangos" which is raising a stormy debate (see Guardian blog), after the introduction of a Public Bodies Bill, and has been labelled contrary to the (unwritten) constitution of the realm by a select committee report of the House of Lords, because it proposes to bypass parliament, giving the power to change, transfer or abolish these public bodies straight to ministers.
I can sense and share the weariness involved in the 'well rehearsed' phrase.
ReplyDeleteThe Energy Secretary does well to argue the merits of environmental regulation, and gives very good arguments regarding the value of regulation in general. Still, I am not entirely sure that's the only argument he's making; recall that his objection was to the fact that environmental rules were made subject to the Red Tape Challenge in the first place.
In my humble opinion, this was deeply unwise. He should welcome the fact that regulations are being questioned and then reaffirm his faith that environmental regulation in the UK is well-calibrated, or that individual rules are about as efficient as they could be. The two questions, accountability of regulators on the one hand and usefulness of regulations on the other, are entirely separate and should not be conflated.
Now of course he would counter that it is his Conservative partners in Government who are conflating the two by slapping a presumption of guilt on each regulation they examine, and if he did then he would be right.
None of this of course make the one-in-one-out system any less of a failure. Consider also that the Government is considering turning this ratio into one-in-two out: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1367900/LISA-BUCKINGHAM-The-red-tape-cutters-route-economic-recovery.html
ReplyDeleteI hear the same ratio is being called for in Australia: http://www.nswbusinesschamber.com.au/News-Media/Latest-News/Business-proposes-ground-breaking-plan-to-cut-red-.aspx
It will not, of course make a blind bit of difference.
Manos thank you for a really useful comment, especially the evolution towards one in two out which we BR experts need to check out. You are right, I work on the assumption that deregulation is now a bit passé, but the blog must record events even when they replay old tunes.
ReplyDelete