|
Written by Dr Eamonn Butler
|
|
Thursday, 01 November 2007 |
Labour MP Andrew Miller, head of the House of Commons Regulatory Reform Committee, was our guest at a Power Lunch yesterday.
He – and indeed anyone involved in regulatory reform – has a difficult
job. I'm all in favour of checks and balances so that Parliament has
control over the executive. Maybe it stops the state expanding and
power being centralized. But when you actually want to do something
useful, like cutting regulation, it can be a nightmare. I'm sure that
the Committee would love to deregulate lots of things, but by the time
both houses of Parliament have got through with it, not a lot actually
gets deregulated.
So we continue to add more regulations, maybe 300 a year, than we
ever get rid of. One of our lunch guests made the point that
Parliamentarians' whole purpose, as they see it, is to pass laws –
which in turn require regulations. Attacking regulations is seen as an
attack on them. So why should they agree to it? And of course if they
did suspend a regulation and someone got hurt, everyone would be
blaming them. Much easier to keep the red tape.
So if anyone has any ideas on how to make progress on this issue, I'd like to know.
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed