But simplifying rules is better than ‘slash and burn’. The public realises this, says Kevin Hawkins
Reducing the burden of regulation" and "scrapping red tape" are slogans we've all heard many times.
Yet the number and complexity of the regulations governing the conduct of a grocery business, large and small, have gone on growing - until now.
The Red Tape Challenge, launched on 8 April, marks a sea change in the coalition's approach to regulation. The goal is an economy in which business generally is much less encumbered by a complex and costly web of "do's" and "don'ts". The government wants to be the first in modern history to end its term of office with fewer rules and regulations on the statute book than when it was elected.
So why should this initiative succeed where its various predecessors have failed? There are three significant differences. First, there is a real commitment at the centre of government to make it work. In the past, ministers have paid lipservice to the cause of better regulation but declined to do much about it. Second, for the first time the onus will be on government departments to make the case for keeping a given regulation, whereas in the past all they had to do was resist the arguments for reform.
The third and in my view most critical difference, however, is that this campaign has sparked an unprecedented public response.
The first phase, in which I was personally involved, focused on the retail sector. The public, including everyone in retailing, was invited to submit their ideas and comments through the Red Tape Challenge website. By the end of the four weeks allocated to retail, more than 14,000 responses had been logged far more than on any previous occasion. Some were aimed at getting rid of particular regulations, but more advocated consolidating and simplifying existing rules, for example in the consumer protection field.
Contrary to what some respondents seemed to think, this is not a "slash and burn" exercise. One can support the broad aim of a regulation while being critical of bad drafting, over-zealous implementation or excessive paperwork. Similarly, we can't do much about the fundamentals of directives and regulations from Brussels but can remove any "gold plating" and simplify implementation processes.
Now the campaign has moved on to the food, drink and hospitality sector. Don't fail to use this opportunity.
Reducing the burden of regulation" and "scrapping red tape" are slogans we've all heard many times.
Yet the number and complexity of the regulations governing the conduct of a grocery business, large and small, have gone on growing - until now.
The Red Tape Challenge, launched on 8 April, marks a sea change in the coalition's approach to regulation. The goal is an economy in which business generally is much less encumbered by a complex and costly web of "do's" and "don'ts". The government wants to be the first in modern history to end its term of office with fewer rules and regulations on the statute book than when it was elected.
So why should this initiative succeed where its various predecessors have failed? There are three significant differences. First, there is a real commitment at the centre of government to make it work. In the past, ministers have paid lipservice to the cause of better regulation but declined to do much about it. Second, for the first time the onus will be on government departments to make the case for keeping a given regulation, whereas in the past all they had to do was resist the arguments for reform.
The third and in my view most critical difference, however, is that this campaign has sparked an unprecedented public response.
The first phase, in which I was personally involved, focused on the retail sector. The public, including everyone in retailing, was invited to submit their ideas and comments through the Red Tape Challenge website. By the end of the four weeks allocated to retail, more than 14,000 responses had been logged far more than on any previous occasion. Some were aimed at getting rid of particular regulations, but more advocated consolidating and simplifying existing rules, for example in the consumer protection field.
Contrary to what some respondents seemed to think, this is not a "slash and burn" exercise. One can support the broad aim of a regulation while being critical of bad drafting, over-zealous implementation or excessive paperwork. Similarly, we can't do much about the fundamentals of directives and regulations from Brussels but can remove any "gold plating" and simplify implementation processes.
Now the campaign has moved on to the food, drink and hospitality sector. Don't fail to use this opportunity.
No comments yet