Mark Prisk’s plans for “one in, one out” will not cut the regulatory burden, says Kevin Hawkins


At the BRC annual dinner last week, Mark Prisk, minister of state at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, announced a potentially important step forward on the perilous road to better regulation.

The government was, he said, adopting a “one in, one out” approach to all future proposals for new regulations. Presumably, therefore, every piece of new legislation will be counter-balanced by the repeal of an existing law and the total stock of regulation will remain constant.

Except that it won’t. A splendid idea, minister, and if most of our regulations were born and bred in Westminster it would probably work in practice. When, however, we remember that some 90% of our food and farming regulations and 80% of our environmental laws are generated in Brussels and Strasbourg, the unilateral imposition of “one in one out” by any UK government looks improbable. The minister didn’t comment on this particular elephant in the room and when I sought enlightenment from his departmental website I found none.

There is no political will within the main organs of the EU to reduce the flow of regulation and end the growth of the nanny supra-state. The absurd proposal to include suppliers’ names on food packaging typifies the urge to intervene where there is no demand for it. Aspiring bureaucrats in Brussels earn their spurs by piloting a new directive through the system, while 700- plus MEPs like to feel important. The culture of intervention is, therefore, unlikely to change.

So what, realistically, can we do to ease the burden of regulation on business and restore the legitimacy of risk-taking in everyday life?

Decentralisation will achieve little in itself unless the way in which power is exercised also changes. For example, most of the stupidities of the health and safety regime arise through over-zealous interpretation at local level. Similarly, the broader problem of “regulatory creep” occurs when the guidance issued centrally to assist the implementation of legislation is regarded as holy writ by lawyers and consultants, resulting in a widespread culture of precautionary action “just in case”.

The former Better Regulation Task Force recognised these issues and in two reports produced a range of practical suggestions to deal with them, but to no great effect on the previous government. I commend them to Mr Prisk. 

Kevin Hawkins is an independent retail consultant.