Scoring deregulation

 

             The government has recently published an update on its One in One out policy for regulation.  On arrival in office the Coalition agreed that there is too much regulation. Some imposes disproportionate cost for the benefit, some is out of date or no longer needed, some can be counter productive.

              Instead of adopting the idea of regulatory budgets with requried reductions in the cost of regulation every year as recommended in the Conservative Policy review, they decided on a One in, One out policy.  Any new regulation had to be matched by the removal of one at least as burdensome. Overall they wanted to get the costs of regulation down.

            They have so far reported on four six month periods. In three of the four periods they have removed substantially more regulations than they have introduced. Only in the first period did they fall short by two measures. Overall they have removed 69 and introduced 38.

             More important than the numbers of regulaitons is the cost imposed.  In the first six month period they reduced regulatory cost by £3.3 bn, in the second by £221 million, whilst in the third costs rose by £9m and in the fourth by £2.66bn. Their forecast for the whole One in One out period is for a net reduction in cost of £919m.

           The government now wishes to accelerate the progress. They are changing policy to One in, Two out. That is good news. They still need to ensure that this results in a significant downward movement in total regulatory cost, preferably with an improvement in the beneficial impact of what regulation remains. It should be psosible to improve the efficacy and reduce the cost of regulation substantially, after years of fast and badly planned growth. It is a good area to achieve more with less.

            None of these numbers, of course, include EU regulation. A full survey should do so. The UK government should be able to strip away loads of domestic regulations, as the EU progressively takes over many areas of law making from the domestic lawmakers. Looking at the figures, only the DWP has cut out  more than £200m of cost, with a total saved of £681m. DEFRA and Business have both managed more than £100m each, but the rest have  got nowhere.  The Treasury, the lead economic department, has special scope to do so much, but for the time being seems to be making the overall tax system more complex, with ever longer legislation.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

70 Comments

  1. Sidney Falco
    Posted December 20, 2012 at 6:26 am | Permalink

    I would like to know who came up with the financial figures relating to the regulation changes.

    Were they made by independent people or by the mandarins in the relevant department?

    If the former, I’d take the figures with a large pinch of salt.

    If the latter, were they audited? If so, by whom?

    • Disaffected
      Posted December 20, 2012 at 9:46 am | Permalink

      I agree. Cameron was quick to criticise Norway and try to make them a comparison for the UK not to follow. So how is it that Norway had about 5,000 laws introduced/imposed by the EU in total (very few substantive laws effecting their lives) and the Uk has about 3,000 per year for the last forty years. How many policies has this created? How much bureaucracy has this created? How many quango’s created- still waiting for that bonfire, Queen’s speech indicated a further six! I am not convinced the numbers are correct.

      Today it is reported that Cameron advocated to his backbenchers that the Tory election campaign will be on a Eurosceptic ticket. Someone ought to tell him the train has left town and no one will believe a word he says on the subject.

      • lifelogic
        Posted December 20, 2012 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

        Someone ought to tell him no one will believe a word he says on any subject.

      • APL
        Posted December 20, 2012 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

        Disaffected: “Today it is reported that Cameron advocated to his backbenchers that the Tory election campaign will be on a Eurosceptic ticket.”

        I’ve been saying for some time, there is an election looming and the Tory top brass are getting their dog whistles out.

        Once they have the election in the bag, it’ll be BAU (Betrayal as Usual).

        If you must vote Conservative, vote independent Conservative.

  2. Sidney Falco
    Posted December 20, 2012 at 6:32 am | Permalink

    Second go… Ignore previous post!

    I would like to know who came up with the financial figures relating to the regulation changes.

    Were they made by independent people or by the mandarins in the relevant department?

    If the former, I’m pleased with progress and a One In Two Out policy is a move in the right direction.

    If the latter, were they audited? If so, by whom? If not, I’d take the figures with a large pinch of salt!

    You can understand the government using the On In, One Out concept (rather than budget figures) as it is catchy and easier to understand by the voters.

  3. lifelogic
    Posted December 20, 2012 at 8:21 am | Permalink

    One in one out, or one in two out, are clearly silly PR presentation phrases in the Cameron style. Clearly we just need to get rid of all the pointless and counter productive ones as soon as possible. The deposit protection scheme is an absurd imposition pushing up the cost of renting for tenants as are the over the top annual gas certificates and nonsense energy certificates, largely just a racket to profit providers.

    But Cameron is, alas, bringing in new absurd ones every day – the no retirement rules, the gender neutral insurance, the over complex condensing boilers and over the top building regulations in general, the absurd subsidy to wind and PV house bling.

    Matt Ridley has a sensible article on how all the wheels are falling off the Catastrophic warming bus. Even the IPC seems to agree now, In the Wall Street Journal.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323981504578179291222227104.html

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted December 20, 2012 at 9:05 am | Permalink

      Lifelogic–Very interesting article for which thanks. The flavour is as ever the IPCC et al needing to be dragged kicking and screaming in to the realisation that climate alarm is bunkum. Naturally they do not wish to lose their raison d’etre. BTW I suspect you agree that what the IPCC should be issuing is not just an Erratum but a Corrigendum (a thing requiring to be corrected).

    • Disaffected
      Posted December 20, 2012 at 9:51 am | Permalink

      Lifelogic, you are correct again. How about gay marriage? How many policies on teahcing in school will this create? How many laws, and guidelines to laws, will this create in magistrate courts, crown courts, civil courts? The claim is so absurd when you take a moment to pause and think about it. Then you consider who was the buffoon who created the policy that the numbers must be counted and be released to the public!! you could not make this crap up.

      • Leslie Singleton
        Posted December 20, 2012 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

        Disaffected–Couldn’t agree more. If our idiot of a Prime Minister gets his way and somebody you don’t know well asks you to his or her wedding presumably you would have to ask whether it was same sex or not. Same sex so-called marriages will also make it another notch easier for a same sex couple to adopt which I think a travesty beyond description. Homosexuality should be allowed, fine, but what on earth has that to do with marriage and rearing children? Just imagine being such a child–going to school for instance.

        • Leslie Singleton
          Posted December 21, 2012 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

          Reply–Dear John, You apparently overlooked this.

    • Jerry
      Posted December 20, 2012 at 10:43 am | Permalink

      @Lifelogic: Nice anti Cameron rant there, just a pity that most of the regulations and changes that you cite as being the fault of Mr Cameron had nothing to do with him or even this Coalition government…

      • lifelogic
        Posted December 20, 2012 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

        He is accepting them, and not even complaining about them, and so is clearly culpable. He also lost the last sitting duck election due to his pro EU, fake green, tax borrow and waste, socialist agenda and clearly is going to lose the next one on this course.

    • stred
      Posted December 20, 2012 at 11:02 am | Permalink

      It is possible that the regulations being disposed of are the least necessary and outdated. Certainly the new regulations and the charges for the hangman’s rope are more onerous and in many cases unecessary. The new licensing of shared housing is a case, where a government survey showed no additional fire risk in small houses with 4 persons sharing. Despite this many councils are opening whole departments where inspectors require expensive fire doors and detection systems.

      I used to inspect social housing estates 6 months after completion. 95% of fire doors were wedged open or removed as people found them inconvenient. They are not required in other countries and in some ways it is best to find out when a fire starts quickly, rather than letting it get going behind a resistant door. The important thing is to get out as soon as possible.

      But in the UK the fire officer’s dream is to have housing compartmented like a submarine. The industry will not object of course as the value of the work is huge. And, of course, every unecessary inspection, fee and building contract adds to GNP.

      • lifelogic
        Posted December 20, 2012 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

        Indeed tenants just wedge the doors open as they are a pain the the bum.

    • uanime5
      Posted December 20, 2012 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

      The article you posted is written by people who no knowledge of science talking to people who have no knowledge of global warming. It also doesn’t make reference to anything the IPCC has said or done, nor does it claim that the IPCC has changed its stance on climate change. So it provides no useful information.

      • Richard1
        Posted December 21, 2012 at 10:18 am | Permalink

        Your posts on this subject savour of fanaticism not rational analysis. Matt Ridley is a distinguished science writer and journalist, and he is reporting on a debate amongst scientists working in this field. You might not like the implications, but just slagging off the authors does nothing for the credibility of your position.

      • Disaffected
        Posted December 21, 2012 at 11:08 am | Permalink

        Socialist drivel as normal.

        • Edward
          Posted December 21, 2012 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

          Indeed Disaffected, the standard response by the hard left to any argument that can’t be won by rational debate is to attack and insult the author or speaker.
          Shout the heretitcs down.

        • Bazman
          Posted December 22, 2012 at 5:10 pm | Permalink

          The drivel often comes from the right who when confronted by any evidence go silent and so they should. Right wing dogma might work down the pub, but you can be sure I and others will fight it.

          • Edward
            Posted December 23, 2012 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

            If you spoke to people down the pub like you do on here, you would find youself thrown out!

    • Bazman
      Posted December 20, 2012 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

      Looking views that agree with your own prejudiced views again lifelogic
      Pity Matt Ridley was not more incisive before Northern Rock went down. Lets hope his views on climate change are not “catastrophic black mark” on his CV, as he put it. What else is he an ‘expert’ in? (etc)

    • Bazman
      Posted December 22, 2012 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

      Matt Ridley was chairman of Northern Rock when it went down, so lets hope he is more accurate on global warming Huh? Don’t talk about scientific evidence and qualifications and then quote this guy.

  4. Leslie Singleton
    Posted December 20, 2012 at 8:35 am | Permalink

    I find it hard to take this so-called “Policy” on de-regulation seriously. It doesn’t exactly overflow with logic and might have been thought more suitable for an April Fool’s Day article. Why not ‘One In ergo Three (or 17) Out’? If there is Regulation that can be dispensed with, as much as possible should be dispensed with ASAP. If there isn’t there is nothing to talk about.

    • Posted December 20, 2012 at 11:14 am | Permalink

      Absolutely. Regulations that are costing jobs and livelihoods (which I am sure they are) need to be culled now and not in the casual and arbitrary way being suggested.

      • Bazman
        Posted December 20, 2012 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

        Which ones will that be? Employees rights and health and safety in the workplace?

      • lifelogic
        Posted December 20, 2012 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

        Indeed the growth of non jobs in the state sector, law, health and safety experts, compliance consultants and the rest needs to be culled and reversed. We need a growth in people doing useful things not inconveniencing others.

        • Edward
          Posted December 21, 2012 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

          Yes, abolish the REACH regulations, abolish the need to have a writen data protection act policy, a written bribery act policy, a written corporate social responsibility policy, to have to submit an annual companies house return, at cost to yourself, even if the details already on file do not need alteration, abolish having to renew your hazardous waste licence every year, at cost to yourself, just to get new number to give the the company collecting your waste.
          Just a few examples of hundreds of bureaucratic trivia items that add up to a load on small companies taking up their time and diverting them from concentrating on making a living and employing others

    • Bob
      Posted December 20, 2012 at 11:25 am | Permalink

      @Leslie Singleton
      “Why not ‘One In ergo Three (or 17) Out’?”

      You’ve seen though Dave’s catchy sound byte.
      One in one out sounds good and sets the bar low enough that even the Liberal led coalition can manage to comply, with the surprising exception of George Osborne’s treasury apparently ~

      “The Treasury, the lead economic department, has special scope to do so much, but for the time being seems to be making the overall tax system more complex, with ever longer legislation. “

      Taking over a tax manual from Brown and Balls and then making it longer and more complicated deserves special recognition. I would suggest presenting him with a P45.

  5. Denis Cooper
    Posted December 20, 2012 at 9:11 am | Permalink

    “None of these numbers, of course, include EU regulation.”

    Thanks for pointing that out.

  6. Alte Fritz
    Posted December 20, 2012 at 9:22 am | Permalink

    Regulation has become the ivy choking the life out of this country. One has to ask whether it would be better to suffer some abuses than reach the state of paralysis in which regulation lands us.

  7. oldtimer
    Posted December 20, 2012 at 9:25 am | Permalink

    The giveaway is your statement that none of these numbers reflect EU regulations. Your description of what has been done so far does not impress.

    • Edward
      Posted December 21, 2012 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

      Indeed oldtimer,
      3000 new EU laws per year is what uanime5 told us recently comes out of Europe which we have to “obey” (his word not mine)
      And dont forget to add the many hundreds of EU directives and regulations to comply with each year as well.
      Its rather like trying to reduce immigration when 80% comes from within the EU, over which we have no control. Similarly, trying to reduce regulation and redtape is impossible when we have no control over those which comes from the EU

  8. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted December 20, 2012 at 9:33 am | Permalink

    JR: “On arrival in office the Coalition agreed that there is too much regulation…………Overall they wanted to get the costs of regulation down.”

    Typical action from government; they want to reduce regulation so introduce a system of one in, one out. The results suggest that after an early reduction in costs the opposite is now happening and they are actually increasing costs. Most people would have reviewed what regulations were essential and removed the rest. This is so revealing about the way government works and why it is so ineffective. No doubt some of the cabinet see this system as “fair” – a much overused and abused word in the politicians’ lexicon. Now it is to be one in, two out. That suggests to me that there may be less new regulation but also less deregulation, not more. I don’t expect the final outcome, if independently audited, will show a reduction in cost but more likely an increase. Like so much with this government their actions fall far short of their words.

  9. Wilko
    Posted December 20, 2012 at 9:46 am | Permalink

    Do the reduced costs of regulation shown include the cost incurred by the parties regulated? If they are merely figures for reduced Govt expenditure, they might be only a small fraction of the full expense.

    Cost of Govt is important, yet the complicated nuisance, distraction & time business wastes in complying with spurious forms of regulation all oppose efficiency. These incur further consequential costs passed on to us all.

  10. MajorFrustration
    Posted December 20, 2012 at 10:00 am | Permalink

    Agree with Sidney Falco -unless we have chapter and verse on the supposed savings they become akin to the many claims of Gordon Brown – like the creation of 100000 apprenticeships. Given that Politicians seldom provide all the facts they should realise that anything they say will be picked over. You can fool the people some of the time….

  11. a-tracy
    Posted December 20, 2012 at 10:01 am | Permalink

    Problem is all the new regulations are very costly on small businesses and all the ones removed don’t affect us!

    Just on payroll alone
    Real Time Information transfer requiring new software, extra time cost on the business, training expenses to operate it with no benefit to the business, no payback.
    Sick pay for workers over state pension age introduced
    Holiday pay introduced whilst on sick leave
    Holiday pay whilst on maternity leave for the full period including extended unpaid maternity leave

    I’ve provided four costs that have gone up significantly this year can you give me four suggestions of costs on SME businesses that have gone down?

  12. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted December 20, 2012 at 11:41 am | Permalink

    Like most people, I would much prefer it if we got rid of the EU regulation. It would be helpful if government Ministers, as a matter of routine, announced in the House of Commons when their actions have been determined by EU regulation or QMV. I know that that would lead to a lot of announcements – that is the point.

  13. Richard1
    Posted December 20, 2012 at 11:46 am | Permalink

    You have diplomatically not attacked ‘green’ regulation, although this is increasingly prevalent and expensive (perhaps wishing to limit the number of comments below to double figures).

    An interesting development on this front (not surprisingly we haven’t heard about it on the BBC) is summarised by the distinguished science writer Matt Ridley in the Wall Street Journal (19th Dec). The article explains that new research (by scientists operating in the field in case anyone asks) points to a much lower temperature rise for a doubling of CO2 than has been assumed by the IPCC: 1.6-1.7C vs 2 – 5C as forecast by the IPCC to date. As the IPCC itself notes, at this lower level, the net effects of warming would be beneficial. If this turns out to be right it would undermine the case for ‘green’ regulations and all their costs, for ‘green’ taxes and subsidies (eg to wind farms) and of course would remove the raison d’etre for all those employed (including many directly or indirectly by the state) in green lobby groups or regulators of one sort or another. The savings could be huge. Re-deployment of all these mis-allocated funds would be a tremendous boost to the global economy.

    • uanime5
      Posted December 20, 2012 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

      Have these scientists produced a scientific paper, had it published in a scientific journal, and it this paper peer reviewed? If not then what evidence is there that this information is accurate?

      The IPCC has never claimed that warming is beneficial, especially since it causes so much harm in countries with an already high average temperature (such as countries on the equator).

      Finally even if these claims are correctly, which is very unlikely, all it shows is that humanity can warm the planet for a longer period of time before we’re all doomed. So green energy will still be needed to prevent this.

      • Richard1
        Posted December 21, 2012 at 10:12 am | Permalink

        You should read the article. It is a report of a debate amongst scientists, and highlights a difference of opinion. Who knows which side will turn out to be right in the end – although on present evidence (no global warming for 16 years) it seems the more moderate estimates of potential warming are more in line with the observed data, and that the original IPCC forecasts are exaggerated. You should also read the IPCC’s reports, which are quite clear that up to 2C of warming, though it is estimated that there are both positive and negative effects, the net effect is beneficial.

        The combination of new scientific evidence revising the alarmist forecasts of global warming which have dominated policy for more than 20 years, and the coming abundance of cheap energy from shale gas, is going to undermine completely the green movement. Look how even the Labour and LibDem parties are endorsing shale.

      • Edward
        Posted December 21, 2012 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

        Ah that “peer reviewed” phrase again. Thats where scientists improve their career prospects by writing papers that agree with their trade consensus.
        Well if its peer reviewed it must be true and don’t you dare argue any other way.
        Try getting an article published in a scientific paper that doesn’t agree with the group think on this subject and see how far you get.
        Shame the dire predictions by Al Gore in his film and in the original IPCC report have already not come true.

  14. Jon Burgess
    Posted December 20, 2012 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

    Where can one find these reports?
    Is there any available data on the number of new EU regulations and their cost to implement?
    If the EU is making so much more law now instead of Westminster, what is parliament for? Any chance the electorate could be asked if they support this?

    • uanime5
      Posted December 20, 2012 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

      While you’re at it you might want to find out whether there’s fewer UK regulations because the Government is using more EU regulations.

  15. Neil Craig
    Posted December 20, 2012 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

    One in one out is unambitious if the objective is to cut regilations. It should be 1 in, 2 out.

  16. nicol sinclair
    Posted December 20, 2012 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    Absolutely no comment. All too much for me… Let’s revert to English – please? Some of us (maybe most) are not economists.

  17. Pleb
    Posted December 20, 2012 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    Presumably when the EU finally makes all the new regulations then there will be no need for MPs to control the EU region that we live in. Civil servants can just enact the EU governance?
    In this case turkeys do vote for christmas.

    • StevenL
      Posted December 20, 2012 at 9:50 pm | Permalink

      The EU doesn’t always trust the civil servants to enact (transpose) it’s governence (directives). So in some areas, such as food and agriculture, it just makes regulations now which have ‘direct effect’ and no need to transposition or Parlimentry approval.

  18. Alan Wheatley
    Posted December 20, 2012 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

    The approach as described seems to me as symptomatic of the “box-ticking” World into which we now find ourselves: simplistic process with no judgement.

    Removing one or more regulation for each new one introduced is daft. What should be happening is for ALL unnecessary regulations to be removed as quickly as possible, and for only those new regulations that are really necessary to be introduced.

    The burden is not simply one of numbers but the rate at which new regulations are introduced.

    And, of course, as the EU does more and more for us not only do we need less of our own regulation but fewer of our own MPs!

  19. uanime5
    Posted December 20, 2012 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

    It’s amazing that despite the reduction in the cost of regulation since the coalition was elected the economy keeps getting worse. Could there be a correlation between less regulation and less growth?

    Some other things to consider are: were the reductions in regulations evenly spread among all industries or did some benefit more than other, and were a series of complex regulations replaced with a more brief but equally complex set of regulations?

    In other news the Government is making a programme to spy on the computers of the unemployed to monitor how long they’re spending job searching (illegal under EU law). So expect the benefit bill to be reduce through an increase in 3 year long sanctions, rather than getting people into jobs.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9757895/Jobless-to-be-remotely-monitored-by-Government.html

    Reply: There has been an increase in overall regulation thanks to the EU

    • Bazman
      Posted December 21, 2012 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

      A large amount of paranoia about this government website. You do have to be looking for work to claim JSA, but you do not have to use this site to prove you are, though is worth a look.

  20. margaret brandreth-j
    Posted December 20, 2012 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

    How about regulating bank reserves..

  21. Sidney Falco
    Posted December 20, 2012 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

    I was at work so could not post another point I remembered while driving to work.

    I am sure everyone on this blog has seen this year all those messages saying that various web sites use cookies and you can click to read our cookie policy…

    This was mandated by the EU – I cannot possibly see a valid reason that would benefit the end user.

    Can you imagine, EU wide, how much time was wasted making sure that all sites implemented this directive.

    I know it is a trivial example – but that is the point – a totally ineffective directive must have cost a fortune to comply with EU wide. (I’ve in IT so know it’s a trivial change to make for a well designed web site.)

    And, I bet the UK have employed some “Cookie Compliment Enforcement Officers” to police this nonsense!!!

    • Sidney Falco
      Posted December 20, 2012 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

      I meant Compliant!

  22. Jon
    Posted December 20, 2012 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

    There is that problem with this one for one approach. Some departments won’t be bringing in much regulation so won’t be chucking out much either. There should also be targets for those departments.

    DWP under IDS had a lot of reform to bring in so understand that, good to see progress by some areas. Under Labour they are piled one on top of the other with no regard to cost and manageability.

  23. Posted December 20, 2012 at 8:09 pm | Permalink

    The last government worked extensively to establish the principles of reducing the regulatory burden while improving the efficacy of regulation.

    The regulators code which was established through this process is excellent and more and more regulatory activity was being obligated to it. What a shame this government chose not to continue this process and instead to ensure regulatory work in areas such as education became far more brutally ignorant.

    It’s quite interesting to go to a session on EU regulation and to actually ask the question – which regulation would anyone get rid of? There’s precious little. Essentially all the EU does is draw up sensible minimum standards for products so there can be a free market where everyone has to produce safe products.

    John? or perhaps UKIP commentators? Please feel free to list some of the EU regulations you’d get rid of in reply to this post. I’m sure you’ll be able to come up with plenty…..

    • a-tracy
      Posted December 21, 2012 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

      The last government did not reduce regulation on business and that is the group they expect to create the funds for education and other departments to spend.

      I have listed quite a number of times regulations I feel are unnecessary.

      Vicarious liability on employers at work parties for a start.
      No Smoking signs in offices and vans are unnecessary now everyone knows the law.
      I don’t agree with holiday pay during sick leave of more than one month’s duration as you have to pay holiday pay to the person fulfilling the role of the absent employee.
      I don’t agree with the new RTI regulations a new employers cost burden without assistant funding.
      I don’t agree with age discrimination legislation and I employ several people over retirement age.

      • Posted December 23, 2012 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

        Thanks for this a-tracy.

        Are these all EU directives? Can you give me a bit more detail about the specific nature of any of these regulations or which directive they come from?

    • Bazman
      Posted December 21, 2012 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

      Product safety should be voluntary. You should be able to choose your car on how safe you drive. Kids should be told not to eat lead. The rest preventing competition by hindering a race to the bottom in safety and working conditions should be lifted immediately. Once that has been removed by people who do not have to take part in this race, in particular the elite and their apologists the economy can get moving. The lack of replies from the fantasists is telling. You know who you are…Ram it.

      • Edward
        Posted December 22, 2012 at 10:18 am | Permalink

        A decent rant baz, only problem is a-Tracy never said anything about removing any regs concerning product safety nor employee safety.
        So you are having a left wing fantasy

        • Bazman
          Posted December 22, 2012 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

          It was in reply to Rebecca Hanson. Edward. Get with it.

          • Edward
            Posted December 23, 2012 at 10:45 am | Permalink

            but Rebecca didn’t suggest any reductions either
            suggest Santa brings you some new reading glasses

          • Bazman
            Posted December 23, 2012 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

            Read the last paragraph. She asks what regulations could be reduced. N o reply from the fantasists so I gave the main ones they would like in order to compete in a race to the bottom in safety and working conditions. Some of the contributors are easily confused and as I have said before its a wonder they do the jobs they do.

          • Edward
            Posted December 24, 2012 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

            Then she says “there is precious little”
            ie room to reduce regulations on product safety.
            Which I and a-tracy agreed with.
            So your knee jerk reaction of “race to the bottom” and talk of a free market unregulated in terms of health and safety or product safety is just another of your left wing fantasies.
            The only confused person here is you.

    • Edward
      Posted December 21, 2012 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

      Rebecca,
      If that was all the EU did, “draw up sensible minimum standards for products…so everyone has to produce safe products.” then I and many others in manufacturing industry would have little complaint, but it is not what is happening.
      3000 new laws per year, hundreds of new directives and reguations many with punative fines for failure to comply.
      So just one example of EU recent redtape we could abolish, the REACH Regulations

      • Bazman
        Posted December 22, 2012 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

        Leaving companies to regulate themselves on dangerous chemicals or some other organisation. Maybe there should be no regulation?

        • Edward
          Posted December 23, 2012 at 10:49 am | Permalink

          Showing your ignorance here baz
          REACH is the duplication of many existing regs which control dangerous chemicals

          • Posted December 23, 2012 at 8:48 pm | Permalink

            It looks coherent to a non-expert like me.
            This HSE is a good guide we can use for discussion:
            http://www.hse.gov.uk/reach/index.htm
            Perhaps you could point out the problems with REACH in reference to specific pages on this site Edward to help me understand the particular issues?

          • Edward
            Posted December 24, 2012 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

            It might well be good Rebecca if it were not on top of all the existing regulations and laws which already protect us from the effects of the use of chemicals which are not being removed.
            That is my simple point, that it is another layer of EU law on top.
            Such new regulations are often seen by people as a “good thing” and it is said you can’t have too much of a good thing, but it is an additional burden for EU businesses to have to comply with and pay high fees annually for.

    • lifelogic
      Posted December 23, 2012 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

      First one to go should be the gender neutral insurance law which is clearly an absurdity and a huge and counter productive misdirection of resources.

  24. zorro
    Posted December 20, 2012 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

    ‘Their forecast for the whole One in One out period is for a net reduction in cost of £919m.’….

    That’s not much really in comparison to the regulatory burden albatross around our neck. I suspect that these are government calculations/figures so they should be treated cautiously. Indeed, from what you state, it appears that DWP has contributed to the vast majority of this effort with no real impact elsewhere in government. As you say, the EU regulation is not included, and a lot of the time, domestic regulation comes about as a result of EU edicts.

    It would be interesting to see what measures were taken in DWP to get the numbers down….Too gimicky (one in one out) and not analytical enough for my liking. I have not had time to read this report, but I would hope that one can clearly see the cost benefit of each regulation either in or out….

    zorro

  • About John Redwood

    John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College, and has a DPhil from All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has been a director of NM Rothschild merchant bank and chairman of a quoted industrial PLC.
    Published and promoted by Thomas Puddy for John Redwood, both of 30 Rose Street Wokingham RG40 1XU
  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page