大象传媒

I've always thought that the way to curb regulation is to raise the barriers for its introduction.

My understanding is that at present it only needs to be "laid before parliament", that is, a whole bunch of regulation is brought into parliament on a trolley, waved at, and wheeled out again.

What about if regulation had to be scrutinised by parliament? If committees similar to Select Committees had to examine the regulation and only then approve it?

You could go further - you could have a class of regulation which would automatically lapse unless parliament renewed it.

Finally, there is the added burden of "guidance" to go with regulation. Too often regulations cannot be acted upon until the official "guidance" has been issued - in particular, software developers can't put regulation into code without the guidance. And it only needs a change in guidance (not even a regulatory change) for the software to need to start another change->test->deploy cycle. The IT contractors often get a bed press, but all too often developing the software is like trying to nail jelly to a tree.

I think you hit the nail on the head with:

"The reason why regulation persists though, is that politicians with the courage to defy the clamour are often the ones who are not put in charge."

Sadly, in my opinion, the public get what they want. I think people fail to realise that whilst they might want one particular thing everyone else wants something slightly different. As a result you get a multitude of rules and regulations which no one likes but many have contributed to.

I haven't read anything specific on the proposals as yet but if it helps spark debate, and more importantly action, on making day to day life easier in the UK then I'm all for it.

Gareth.

On a subject which the 大象传媒's reporting had ranged from peurile (playing the Redwood not-singing clip) to downright biased (the Robin Brandt Newsnight article), the 大象传媒 at last produces a sensible bit of analysis. Congratulations Evan.

Re: John Redwood:

"It's not that he necessarily has more insight into administration than other politicians - it's really just that he's more willing to abandon the idea that every problem requires a solution."

Perhaps it's not that he doesn't believe that all problems need a solution. Perhaps he believes that government intervention/regulation is not always the best solution.

Indeed, perhaps sometimes it is the case that government intervention/regulation is actually the cause of the problem in the first place. The law of unintended consequences and all that.

In other words, perhaps John Redwood doesn't view this as merely striking a balance between reducing the burden on business and reducing turbulence of the markets?

Your comments on de-regulation are of course absolutely on the mark, politicians almost without exception exist to regulate because they beleive that they can make a difference and that they know best. Equally almost without excetion they are wrong.We need somehow to return to the notion that we are each responsible for ourselves and our families and that we owe society the minimum of decent behaviour and self reliance. Our society is now controlled by people and institutions who beleive they know best and that the population can be monitored and regulated at their will, with no step too far (eg Congestion charging, speed cameras,cctv that actually talks to the hapless citizen,fines for not telling DVLA your vehicle is off the road,28 day detention without due process,money laundering laws that allow confidential information to be passed to the authorities without redress and anonomously, etc,etc) in short our liberties have been stolen by those who know best.Some names tothink about who knew best....Hitler, Stalin, Franco, Mugabi(he knows best) this is a sad state for the cradle of freedom to be in...regards John Westwood

What an odd article, broadcast on radio 4 this morning as if from a high priest.
The article assumes regulation is good and anyway impossible to cut.
It also asks about definition, what is regulation anyway, and comes up with Labour pleasing examples.
It tries to make Redwood out as alone and on mission impossible.
The article does not discuss any of the contents of the report, so all very vague. Does it discuss THE big regulation engine, the EU?
If not, why not - and if not why hasn't the 大象传媒 mentioned it, as a criticism from the right of politics rather than its constant criticism from the 'media liberal' left?

I work in financial services and we are faced with the imminent introduction of mifid (market in financial instruments directive). Now a single market in financial services is probably a good thing but it is being applied no matter what. The FSA is finding to its consternation that it is being run over by the Euro juggernaut as mifid takes precedent over FSA rules.
My point is having signed up to the single European market how can any UK politician influence the implementation of this policy?

Remember when John Redwood couldn't sing the Welsh national anthem? We can't trust that man with anything

Indeed. As a small business owner, I know as well as most just how much we suffer from over-regulation. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for all the red tape to be cut. Successive governments promise to do so, and none delivers.

I think there may be another reason, however, why excessive regulation is so difficult to axe, which you haven't mentioned in your article.

Consider this: who stands to lose the most jobs when regulations are cut? Answer: civil servants. Call me a cynic if you like, but don't politicians depend on civil servants to put their ideas for deregulation into practice? Do we think civil servants are motivated to be as helpful as they could possibly be when ministers ask them to cut regulations?

This is perhaps off-topic, but I do think people exist better without regulation. In the town which we stay in in Italy, the traffic lights at a busy intersection have flashed amber for at least 10 years. Because of this everyone takes their own movement and safety into their own hands. There are rarely queues or accidents. If people are responsible for themselves they become more cautious by nature, if you regulate them, they will more likely follow blindly. Surely an active society is better than a passive one?

Good grief! Why does every entry in this blog get criticised either for being evidence of the 大象传媒's liberal leftism or for being proof of Evan's closet plutocratic instincts? Could it be that maybe the opinion or analysis expressed is not as extreme as the complainants' own? Is that really so unlikely? Evan Davis is the best economics journalist on TV and deserves high praise for consistently explaining the subtleties and vagaries of economics in an accessible and unpatronising way. More of the same, please. By the way, I live in John Redwood's constituency and when he's out canvassing he runs like a girl between the houses. Nevertheless, I'd still trust him to provide an intelligent analysis of economic policy even if I didn't agree with him, so can we please drop the anthem-based criticisms? They're puerile.

We do not need a competition commission, we need a common sense commission.

The biggest burden on business at the moment is Health and Safety regulations. With the need to run all kinds of Health and Safety Training courses, inspections and documentation in order to stay legal.

It is funny but none of these reulations are being considered by his review but yet there are hundreds of new businesses, civil servants, solicitors, lawyers etc. are going round ensuring that businesses pay up and do what is necessary.

No consideration is taking into account on whether small firms can afford these costs and nor is there any government grants to meet them.

Instead certain events are being cancelled on the grounds of Health and Safety and small non-dangerous tasks are not being done because of health and Safety.

I even read the other week that a meeting at department of health had to be cancelled because none of the staff in the office were qualified to move a projector and some tables on Health and Safety grounds.

This is the Nanny State gone wrong and this so called competition commission should go through the whole raft of Health and Safety regulations, apply common sense to it and bring in some sort of government funding to meet the sensible regulations that befall on all firms to meet.

In fact a major review of Health and Safety regulations and a scrapping of some the idealistic parts of it could do a lot to inprove the UK's competitiveness. However will it happen - of course it won't for so many peoples livelihoods are beginning to depend on it.

Redwood's willingness to defy a public outcry is limited purely to the raving fringe of pro-market, benefit-the-rich policies. His stance on numerous issues is always informed by what will benefit the rich and powerful.

By cutting regulations it is workers who will lose out when they are injured at work, when they lose their jobs for minor offences, and when they have to pay more for their utilities because the Tories have shut down the bodies which regulated them. This is combined with a social policy which boarders on the fascist, with his voting record firmly against increases in immigation, gay rights, and equality for women.

Redwood may be more willing than the other 645 MPs to resist a public clamour, but we should be extremely pleased on behalf of the poor, the oppressed, any minorities, anybody who works, and anybody who uses utilities such as the telephone, water and gas, that other MPs are less willing to put the boot into people lower down the economic and social hierarchy.

Bloody lazy - blame health and safety. Evan you should be ashamed. Most health and safety regulations come from europe and we have no choice in their introduction. So inturn we can not just ignore them and wipe them off the statue book. How about doing research?

Here here to the last comment posted! A lot of the previous comments seem to be talking about the word 'regulation' as if it is somehow unnecessary or the moral equivalent of 'strangulation' ('we would actually all be better off if traffic lights didn't exist because we would start to put trust in personal responsibility').

Governments exist to regulate, whether this is by managing existing rules or making up new ones. No government can ever claim that it has actually followed any other path. The problem is not regulation but implementation. Money laundering is a great example: it's a big problem and extremely harmful to society, but the way the rules have been put together makes the regulation sometimes ineffective and inefficient.

Perhaps the solution is not to curb regulation or put regulation through endless parliamentary committees, but instead to put greater emphasis on 'due diligence' and a study of the practicalities (cause and effect) of putting rules into place. A more practical civil service?

I'm all for cutting down - or wholesale scrapping of the rules & regulations that governments, & especially the present one -- have piled on us.

However, these days if you dig deep you'll find that 9 out of 10 regulations have been imposed on us by Brussels. There are so many bureaucrats in the pay of the EU that they have to keep on dreaming up new regulations and red tape in order to justify their existence.

In order for John Redwood to get anywhere, the next Conservative government would first have to take us out of the EU. That is what most people in the country want, so let's get on with it! Unfortunately, the Treaty that's not a Constitution would more or less make it possible for us to leave.

We've not got much time left...

Nigel Sitwell

This "6 per-cent liable" nonsense is a typical polititian's lie.
Six per-cent of people who have died so far were liable to pay inheritence tax , but 40% would be "liable" to pay if they died tomorrow.
That's what worries people with modest assets.
The 6 per-cent lie is an attempt to make the tax seem to apply only to the super-rich.
The really super-rich have Accountants to make sure they avoid paying all kinds of tax.
The super-poor not only pay no tax, but get all their care costs paid by the rest of us whilst we will have to sell our houses to pay for ours.
Add to that the scandal of the Civil Servants Pensions being paid by people who's own pensions have been stolen, and you have a recipe for revolution, except that people who shop at John Lewis don't revolt !
I'll back a new political party headed up by Jeff Randall and Evan Davis.

Evan, you provide a lot of insite into the economy and for one, i feel that your input on 大象传媒 News 24 really helps to explain situations to the people. I would like to see more of you on the tv to keep us up-to-date with the economy, not just the UK's but globally. Your own tv program would be watched by alot of people. Good work!

Seems to me that the first thing that has to be done to reduce red tape & over regulation is reduce the number of people employed to create it. Any initiative is doomed to fail as regulation output is obviously proprtional to the (ever increasing) number of public sector workers employed to make it. Clearly a double saving would be realised, the burden of compliance that we all endure plus the enormous cost of government/public sector. Perhaps the first place to start is the 645 Westminster MP's let alone the Scotish Parliament & Welsh Assembly.

I think that Mr Fusi makes a valid point that removing centralised regulation increases self-regulation. However I believe his analogy to the traffic management arrangement in the town in which he stays in Italy to be rather flawed.

As the traffic lights are permanently flashing amber, all drivers approach the junction with caution as one is instructed to do when an amber light shows. Imagine if the lights were stuck on red or green...There would either be total inertia or comlpete anarchy in what would otherwise be a pleasant holiday destination.

The most depressing thing a politican can say is,' The government must do something about ....'. Mostly it is the government's fault in the first place - mostly the result of unintended consequences. Like poverty, regulation will always be with us - otherwise there is no reason to employ hundreds of thousands of civil servants to monitor it all, who would have to go out into the real world and get a wealth creating job. 99.9% of people are honest and decent and play by the rules and they are the ones regulated not the criminals.

John Redwood has a track record. On a previous planet he was shadow Transport Secretary. He came up with a proposal to have a compulsory minimum speed of 50mph on motorways. Now if Mr. Redwood could guarantee a minimum speed of 50mph on the M25, at any time let alone peak periods, then he would be worshipped as a god on Earth as well as on Vulcan. This lack of simple common sense makes it difficult to take anything Mr. Redwood says seriously.

The possible savings from abolishing regulations are totally hypothetical. Many regulated companies are competing with rivals abroad who are also governed by similar regulations. It is probable that removing regulations here might render these companies uncompetitive abroad, and also less competitive with respect to imports. Also, foreign markets might not wish to admit British products from an unregulated environment. Organisations have already spent money to comply with regulations - they are not going to be able to unspend it again if the regulations are removed. The worst of it would be that some regulations just cannot be removed, so there would be a confusing mish mash of regulation and unregulation which would need expertise to unravel and only be of benefit to m'learned friends.

Dunstan Vavasour wrote:

"What about if regulation had to be scrutinised by parliament? If committees similar to Select Committees had to examine the regulation and only then approve it?

You could go further - you could have a class of regulation which would automatically lapse unless parliament renewed it."

Actually, there already are regulations which need to have positive parliamentary approval before they come into force: the 'affirmative procedure' for statutory instruments. That could be made the norm rather than (as now) the exception.

Automatic lapsing is certainly a good idea. In fact, it should apply to ALL legislation, not just regulations.

And whenever a new crime is created, it should be necessary for an old one to be abolished first.

I fear that the only regulations likely to be abolished are ones like those stopping the sale of honours that inconvenience ministers themselves.

Evan's piece is timely. However, there is sensible regulation such as revision of banks and other financial institutions to limit exposure, as opposed to over-regulation: HIMs, much of the EU, to name a few. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion for instance that money laundering laws don't work, are cumbersome to comply with and involve a lot of red tape per se. Rather, many in the financial sector simply see them that way or otherwise they see them as unnecessary and hence don't bother with them. This attitude, when it creeps in, can be fatal. We've seen it with credit agencies and CMO2s. Independent outside revision of policies, practices, procedures and so on is vital in bringing activities around to better protect private industry from within.

Maybe if there was some kind of regulation of the regulations this problem would go away...

The whole regulation argument really comes down to responsibility. Are individuals and businesses ready to take responsibility for their decisions and actions.

In mortgage lending, it should be the individual's responsibility to ensure they can pay now and in the future. And, the bank's responsibility to decide whether they are worth the risk.

One person may borrow well over the standard mortgage income multiple and keep up the payments by hook or by crook. Plenty of others faulter while borrowing within the guidelines, simply because they can't stay out of the shops.

Those who bang on about 'the poor', should note that poor is not a fixed state. My father grew up in a poor single-parent family in the 1940s countryside. With limited education and opportunities he pulled himself up by his boot straps and made a comfortable existence for himself. Now, under the current inheritance tax system he will have to pay upon his death on income that has already been taxed and invested in his owning his own home. Had he taken a council house and spent all his money down the pub - like plenty of his peers - he wouldn't be liable at all. Where's the justice in that?

So long as you believe the solution to all our problems is "just one more piece of regulation", the more regulation we will get. Unless your attitude changes first, then the problem must get worse.

Part of the problem is that the regulations cannot be properly scrutinised by parliament because so many are introduced. Check the legislation website to see how many Statutory Instruments are produced annually and how that has changed over the years. Most MPs don't get the chance to read them and the consequences of the regulations is not obvious to many if they do. We need to have a concerted effort to reduce enabling legislation and insist that parliament can examine regulations properly.

Redwood鈥檚 report will surely lead to more regulation (not less). They are proposing to increase Green Taxes and introduce road pricing. That would be no different to the Lib Dem position on Tax. The LDs reckon they will reduce tax by shifting to green taxes. This further adds to the view that the major parties are all the same.

Mind you - we need more regulation in some areas.

Following the recent catastrophic flooding, surely we can now see the folly of privatisation of the Water Industry. There鈥檚 obviously not been sufficient investment in drainage for years as (mostly foreign) shareholders cream off the profits.

Private companies simply won鈥檛 make the kind of huge investment required in our infrastructure, unless they are coerced into doing so through some increased form of regulation. The openness of the UK corporate sector to foreign ownership may be ok for some industries, but not where essential utilities are concerned.

I also see (in Redwood鈥檚 report) the Tories will increase Gas imports (maybe from that friendly country Russia?). Well we have to, don鈥檛 we, because electricity privatisation was based on short term thinking. We closed down our mining industry to go for Gas Fire power stations 鈥� and now the reserves are running out. Brilliant.

Housing? Well reducing stamp duty on property will fuel further rises in price. And loosening planning laws will simply mean more intrusion into the countryside and more environmental vandalism. OK they want to focus on Brownfield developments. But even then there are implications for road congestion and the burden on local services to be considered.

Why are we needing more housing? It caused by immigration which no party is addressing.

If the Tories are pinning any hope on this report they are deluding themselves.
I鈥檇 rather see a tax cut that is based on abolishing the Barnett formula.

You are quite right Evan. The problem comes about because parliament is populated by a disproportionate number of lawyers. So, rather like the one-liner 'To a man with only a hammer every problem becomes a nail' so it is with parliament.

They have only a hammer - the hammer of legislation. Even where there is no problem they can't just sit on their hands and put their feet up.

'Tell you what lads, we've been passing laws for a good 1000+ years already. I think we've got everything covered. Lets all go down the pub for the next five year. You coming Charles?'

They should take a leaf out of Warren Buffets book. I read an article about him years ago. He was sitting on umpty billion of investors money in cash because there was nothing worth buying. You'd think he'd be getting fidgety, desperate to do a deal and demonstrate his sage-like financial prowess yet again. But nope. He was able to just sit on his hands and do nothing.

He's still rich and successful.

The UK government could achieve so much if it did so much less. Nothing ideally.

I believe that most people (friends, neighbours, colleagues, directors, shareholders) possess a high degree of moral virtue and would generally hold themselves accountable for their own actions. Society generally doesn鈥檛 debate the validity of the fundamental regulations, such as 鈥渄o not commit murder鈥�, although very often the form and implementation of the penalty once murder has been proven is debated. I鈥檓 no expert, but I think the reason that this is so is that the laws which govern our society are laws that we as individuals would naturally live by were they not enforced, but are happy to pass the responsibility of policing on to a central body, i.e., the government. The public, me and you, would do well to remember that that is in essence what a government is 鈥� a central body representing the collective social philosophy of individuals.

How is it then that when it comes to business, the 鈥渁rtificial person鈥� (entity) is deemed infallible and above regulation? Given that the entity (the corporation) is provided this status by government and that this entity is after all a collection of individuals (real people), is it still not the government鈥檚 responsibility to police the affairs of said entity? Particularly in light of that fact that, due to the law governing corporations, the entity鈥檚 liability is limited. Therefore, unlike a real person, who is fully and wholly responsible for infringements to the law, entities are not, and in most cases its owners (shareholders) and managers (directors, CEO鈥檚) are untouchable.
It is for this reason alone, and to echo Farooq Hanif (No. 17), that the role and responsibility of government to create 鈥渢hou shall nots鈥� AND an effective means of policing.

Has anyone (including Evan) properly analysed the implications of deregulation; corporate autonomy if you will? One could argue that corporations鈥� current 鈥済reen鈥� credentials prove that government could, for example, remove environmental regulation. But 鈥済reen鈥� is good for business, and good for tax relief. It is regulation preventing corporations from dumping waste illegally (which would also be good for business); it is not regulation pushing companies to 鈥済o green鈥�. I am no expert, but I believe that deregulation would be contrary to good governance and probably illegal.

I couldn鈥檛 agree more with those who believe that regulations should be properly scrutinised and that common sense should prevail. However, regulation is necessary in a business system in which personal (and corporate) responsibility has been diluted by the limiting of liability. In fact, regulation, I believe, is indirectly proportional to responsibility in a corporate society.

In comment to your last paragraph Evan, courage and deregulation are mutually exclusive: John Redwood is a lobbyist, not a politician, an easy mistake to make in today鈥檚 political arena. Openly questioning the status of the corporate entity would be courageous; pandering to its desires is cowardice.

Before you (the real person) waves the flag of deregulation, contemplate the consequences, not for the sake of the entity (and I assume for the financial benefit thereof) but for the sake of society.

The problem may be DEMOCRACY ITSELF.
Does a beggar tell a millionaire how to spend her money? A millionaire would receive better guidance, not from a BANK, but from someone also independently wealthy who knows how money is best earned and SPENT. But in democracy any crackpot can 'advise' all the rest of us how to spend the collective wealth. I would propose a taxocracy where only the Nett tax MAKERS (Not TAX TAKERS) actually get any say how to run the country financially.
So that Government employees, pensioners, beneficiaries, the unemployed, the mentally unstable, criminal etc DO NOT VOTE! Or else they are really voting in their own incomes with no working responsibility.