|
UNCOMMON SENSE FROM GOVERNMENT THINK TANK
The Better Regulation Commission [BRC] Chair calls for urgent policy rethink: “Stop trying to regulate all risk out of our lives – the cost is unbearable”
New report exposes danger of ‘regulatory overkill’ approach to managing risk in society.
Our national attitude to risk is becoming defensive and disproportionate; the way we try to manage risk is leading to regulatory overkill. Government intervention through regulation should be limited; personal responsibility and trust encouraged. Britain must safeguard its sense of adventure, enterprise and competitive edge. These conclusions come as the Better Regulation Commission launches its report “Risk, Responsibility, Regulation: Whose Risk Is It Anyway?”.
The report responds to a call by Prime Minister Tony Blair to examine who should manage risk in society.1
The report recommends a public debate about the management of risk involving individual citizens and the media but specifically calls for clear and unambiguous leadership from government to:
- Change our national approach to risk: Emphasise the importance of resilience, self–reliance, and innovation; separate fact from emotion; balance necessary levels of protection whilst preserving reasonable levels of risk
- Empower individuals to take more personal responsibility for risk: Give the responsibility for managing risk to those best placed to manage it; embark on state regulation only as a last resort and when nothing else will work; examine areas where the state has assumed more responsibility for people's lives than is healthy or desired
- Provide high quality training in risk management for Ministers and senior civil servants
- Establish FARO (the Fast Assessment of Regulatory Options) an independent, ad hoc panel for expert, dispassionate, evidence–based examination of urgent calls for government intervention
- Launch a 2007 campaign against regulatory inconsistencies and absurdities
The BRC's team of voluntary and independent regulation experts from across the political spectrum undertook research amongst a wide representation of stakeholders.
They found a high level of agreement that “enough is enough”, with strong support for a rational, national debate on how risk in our society can be managed better without regulation being the default option.
The report reveals a growing perception that there are too many rules and regulations, from the absurd (conkers, doormats, bicycle bells) to the less obvious but more costly examples such as planning rules, anti–social behaviour regulations, CCTV or even airport security measures.
Rick Haythornthwaite, Chairman of the Better Regulation Commission, said: “The previous BRTF2 report, Less is More, challenged government about the rising costs of regulation (estimated at over £100bn pa). The government responded with the most comprehensive better regulation programme undertaken anywhere in the world, including a commitment to reduce administrative burdens and to simplify regulations for all.”
“Despite this, there have been 33 Acts of Parliament and at least 1000 regulations introduced so far this year. Our report finds that a growing majority of people from all walks of life feel we have reached a regulatory tipping point. People are no longer convinced that having more and more rules is the best way to solve problems. Moreover, there is growing doubt that the rules we have work to best effect.”
“The BRC contends that the root cause of our over–reliance on regulation is a flawed dialogue between government and society about risk and how to manage it. What is risk? How far should risk be reduced? What is necessary protection? Protection from what…by whom…at what cost… to whom? Our report looks into these issues and uses a series of case studies to illustrate the extent of the current problem. We also set out proposals for remedying the situation.”
The report calls for government to lead a national debate which explores three questions:
- What becomes possible if we trust people more and regulate them less?
- What happens if classic state regulation is limited to a last resort rather than a first instinct?
- How far are people ready to take more responsibility for managing their own risks?
Mr Haythornthwaite continued: “Britain is rightly famous for the achievements of our entrepreneurs, risk takers, adventurers and explorers. We have always pushed boundaries and taken risks in search of greater rewards.
Now, our national resilience, self reliance and spirit of adventure could be threatened by a culture that demands the progressive elimination of risk through more and more regulation.”
“I want to challenge all of us – government, citizens, media, to accept that:
- risk is an essential and useful part of life
- rules and regulations are often the worst way to try to manage risk
- personal responsibility for managing risk needs to be encouraged
- government intervention should be actively limited to those few areas where it is really required.
There is no question of removing protection from where it is needed but we need to get things into perspective – the cost to our society and economy of ever more regulation is too great to ignore.”
Government is expected to respond to the report's recommendations within 60 days.
Summary of recommendations
The report recommends reducing knee jerk regulation by educating ministers and civil servants about risk management, setting up a Fast Assessment for Regulatory Options (FARO) panel to provide evidence–based advice at a time when emotions may be running high and starting the process of handing responsibility for managing risk back to the individual wherever possible.
The BRC urges the government to come clean with the public about risk and regulation, about where ownership and responsibility should start and stop. It needs to spell out that there are costs as well as benefits of risk reduction measures. It must explode the myth that the government can and should manage all risk. It must admit that zero risk is unachievable, unattainable and undesirable.
The report calls for a campaign against inconsistencies and absurdities, where regulations and those implementing them have lost the focus on the desired outcomes. It demands that the Government commits to re–examine areas where the state is considered to have gone too far in its interference of our freedoms.
Better Regulation Commission web site: http://www.brc.gov.uk/index.asp
News release on this subject: http://www.brc.gov.uk/news/2006/061018.asp
The actual report: http://www.brc.gov.uk/publications/risk_report.asp
|
