It is being suggested that Whitehall
departments will be legally obliged to scrap red tape and that ministers would
be required to scrap twice as many existing rules for any new rule they wished
to introduce.
Of course, there have been more
announcements about ‘crusades against red tape’ than Frank Sinatra had final
tours. And, it is absolutely correct that, where rules or regulations are
unnecessary or counter-productive, we should do away with them. For that, we
need to be ever vigilant.
Last November, the Government
claimed that an initial “one in, one out” rule for new Whitehall regulation
introduced in January 2011 had reduced the costs on businesses by almost £1
billion. It wasn’t true. David Cameron followed that by claiming that red tape
should be attacked with the same vigour as “beating Hitler”. He hasn’t.
Enshrining
it in law will test the Government’s rhetoric on reducing the regulatory burden
to the limit. As one insider put it “The key question is what is regarded as
a regulation. The Treasury likes to pretend that changes to the tax code are
not red tape although they provoke the most complaints.”
Similarly,
some of those who continually demand cuts in laws and regulations – are
regularly calling for new laws and regulations to tackle new sorts of crimes.
Just think of the last few weeks with the demands for action on internet
harassment and trolling.
But
the real difficulty is that the vast majority of rules and regulations were
introduced to provide protection – for individuals, but also for businesses.
When some business organisations (like the Institute of Directors) and some
politicians (like UKIP) talk about ‘doing away with red tape to save
billions’, what they actually mean is doing away with the minimum wage,
minimum protections on sickness and holiday pay, health and safety laws etc.
Their
red tape is your wage and rights.
