The Government’s proposals for reforming the framework for better regulation - Which? response

Summary

Which? welcomes this opportunity to respond to the Government’s proposals for reforming the framework for better regulation. This is an opportune time to review the UK’s approach and ensure that regulation is used effectively to benefit consumers, as well as working for responsible businesses and delivering wider societal benefits.

Our views on the key elements of the proposals (which we respond to in detail below) are as follows:

• Common law approach - The regulatory framework on the whole achieves an appropriate balance between principles-based and more prescriptive legislation and we do not think there is a need to fundamentally move away from the current approach. Allowing more flexibility to regulators in the way suggested risks undermining basic principles of the rule of law that public authorities should be accountable for their actions on the basis of pre-existing, clear and known laws.
• Proportionality principle - Legislation should always be used and designed appropriately to achieve the desired policy outcome and be proportionate. A precautionary principle is also essential to protect consumers as well as to ensure consumer confidence in innovation, particularly when dealing with emerging technologies where there may be scientific uncertainty. 
• Regulator’s role in promoting innovation and competition - We do not consider it necessary or appropriate to require all regulators to have a duty to consider competition and/or innovation as in some cases this would result in the regulator being too conflicted and unable to fulfil its public protection responsibilities effectively.
• Accountability of regulators - Wider accountability mechanisms for regulators should be considered and best practice promoted. This includes for example reviewing the make-up of their boards and how they operate, including the level of transparency they operate to.
• Better regulation framework - The Better Regulation Framework should give much greater consideration to impacts on, and for consumers and the public, including consumer protection and wider consumer confidence, as well as the environment. It must take a longer-term approach to assessing the costs, but also the benefits of regulation.
• Reviewing the business impact target (BIT) - The emphasis of the BIT has risked stifling policy development by making it too much of a counting exercise, rather than a fuller and more meaningful assessment of the range of available policy interventions, regulatory and otherwise, to achieve the desired outcome. There needs to be an effective way of assessing and reviewing the impact of regulatory measures, but these need to be part of amore holistic approach.
• Regulatory off-setting (one in, x out) - The one in, x out approach fails to recognise the wider impacts, whether positive or negative, that regulation can have for different interests over time. Rather than having crude targets that create false and meaningless incentives to try and find regulations that can be removed in order to allow regulation to be introduced, even when that regulation fulfils a crucial policy purpose, there should be a more in-depth analysis of the costs and savings that proposed regulation will lead to.