How to be a Civil Servant
This is the second of five notes which:
Ministers have in recent years found that regulation is generally more politically attractive than the alternatives (such as tax and spend). The subsequent growth of the Regulatory State - is accordingly cited as one of three major changes in the UK constitution in the late 20th Century - the others being our membership of an expanding EU, and devolution. This has led to consistent complaints about the burden of regulation. But there are in fact four quite distinct areas of concern.
First, some politicians express concern that there is no effective oversight of this new and powerful "State within a State", and draw attention to the damage that cumulative regulation might do to traditional freedoms and to econonomic growth. Those expressing such concerns are in effect pushing back against Ministers' determination to delegate politically difficult decisions to regulators: decisions ranging from control of interest rates to the choice of medicines available through the National Health Service.
It is hard to underestimate the constitutional significance of such delegations, especially in the field of economic regulation . All the utility regulators have wide powers, such as the power to establish price controls etc. for the companies which they regulate. Some, such as the energy regulator Ofgem, can go further and make laws, in the form of Statutory Instruments, albeit subject to the approval of Parliament. The Competition Commission has even wider powers. It can make a wide range of orders to overcome competition problems. Such orders, which might for instance establish a price control, can be binding on companies and individuals - including you! - and require no parliamentary approval whatsoever.
A House of Lords committee reported on this subject in in 2004:- (The Regulatory State: Ensuring its Accountability) although this report concentrated mainly (but not exclusively) on the accountability or otherwise of the economic regulators.
Second, businesses express concern about the cumulative impact of regulation. They point out that employers are expected to act as tax gatherers via PAYE (deduction at source employee taxation) and the national insurance contribution system. Employers are expected to pay out sickness benefit and income support in the form of tax credits. And then employers' contractual relationship with their employees is affected by a raft of legislation aimed at protecting employees against unfair dismissal, ensuring they earn a minumum wage, and have access to "family friendly" rights to take time off work to look after children ..... not to mention health & safety legislation, disability discrimination legislation and so on and on and on!
It is only fair to point out, however, that UK businesses are less regulated that many of our competitors. Indeed, the UK faces constant pressure, within the EU, to implement yet further social legislation, whilst US businesses are in effect intensively regulated via the threat of private litigation driven by a strong compensation culture. The UK Trade and Industry Committee accordingly reported, on 21 March 2005, that it could "find little hard evidence to support the assertion that UK competitiveness is being threatened by overly stringent employment legislation".
On the other hand, the fact that other economies are over-regulated does not mean that we are not. See the third note in this series to read about developments in this area since early 2005.
The problem is even worse in the public sector, which is subject to most of the regulation that applies to the private sector, as well as its its own panoply of guidance, rules, regulations and inspection. This leads to constant complaints from, for instance, the police and doctors that they spend all their time filling in forms rather than collaring criminals or treating people. Unfortunately the obvious answer - which is to employ assistants to do the more routine work - runs up aganst two problems. First, politicians are determined to cut, not increase, the number of bureaucrats to release staff for "the front line". Second, unions (supported by the media) object to cuts in the numbers of doctors, police or whatever, so it is difficult to find the savings necessary to pay for the improved support, even if the net result would be more efficient.
Third, there is the burden of inspection. Regulations need to be enforced and, in the UK at least, this is usually done by the state as distinct from via private enforcement. This has led to a proliferation of regulatory agencies whose numbers seem likely to be curbed as a result of the 2005 Hampton Report. (See the third note in this series for more detail.)
Fourth, critics draw attention to the apparent growth of "the nanny state". Most of the media, and many politicians, seem hopelessly confused about the extent to which the state should interfere in our private lives. Moves to let us smoke cannabis, gamble more in casinos, enjoy a glass of wine after 11pm, or hunt with dogs, are often roundly condemmed. According to the FT, the Future Foundation even found, in 2005, that c.300 out of 1000 UK adults agreed that pregnant women should receive a police caution for smoking in public. Not everyone agrees with the Bishop Magee's declaration, in the 1800s, that he would rather see England free than sober! But it is a brave Minister who attempts to increase alcohol duty, or restrict fishing with barbed hooks, or restrict our right to beat our children.
Another aspect of this problem is society's determination to "do something" whenever there is a tragedy, such as on a school trip. The usual result is more or improved guidance which adds to the regulatory burden on the public sector (see above). In the case of school trips, the guidance is now said to run to 200 pages, and of course many teachers are now very reluctant to organise any trips at all. The Conservatives said (April 2005) that they would get rid of much of such guidance, but one is forced to wonder whether this promise would survive the first child death of the summer.
Click here to read a note detailing the way that Governments have responded to concerns about the regulatory burden, concentrating on the period from 2005.
Click here to access other pages dealing with related subjects. And please help me keep this website up to date. Please do tell me if you have interesting new information, or if any of the links stop working. Thank you.