BIS promotes the UKAS and the cartel around the world. It is a sales agent for accreditation’s regulatory pseudo-legislation as an alternative to real legislation. This is a conflict of interest with the responsibility of reducing regulations and the Better Regulation agenda.
BIS has believed UKAS’s tosh and may not see the conflict.
1. The Government will regulate to achieve its policy objectives only:
a) having demonstrated that satisfactory outcomes cannot be achieved by alternative, self-regulatory, or non-regulatory approaches; and
b) where analysis of the costs and benefits demonstrates that the regulatory approach is superior by a clear margin to alternative, self-regulatory or non-regulatory approaches; and
c) where the regulation and the enforcement framework can be implemented in a fashion which is demonstrably proportionate; accountable; consistent; transparent and targeted.
1. There will be a general presumption that regulation should not impose costs and obligations on business, social enterprises, individuals and community groups unless a robust and compelling case has been made.
2. The Government will adopt a ‘One In One Out’ approach
3. Before bringing forward any proposal to introduce a new regulation, Departments will need to satisfy BRE / sub-committee secretariat that it passes one of two tests:
a) That no suitable alternative, non-regulatory or self-regulatory means of achieving the same outcome exists;
b) That the measure either reduces the burden of regulation or is deregulatory.
4. When reviewing regulatory proposals the sub-committee will ask the following:
a) Is it necessary for the Government to act?
b) Does the proposed approach harness the insights of behavioural economics in order to achieve outcomes in minimally burdensome ways?
c) Even if there is a clear case for regulation, is this a sufficiently high priority bearing in mind other new burdens being imposed by the Government’s other regulatory priorities?
d) Is the proposed regulation a necessary and proportionate response to the policy issue, does it comply with the other principles of good regulation and are the proposed enforcement arrangements credible and affordable?
e) Have the costs and benefits, and the impacts on small firms, public and third sector organisations, individuals and community groups been robustly identified and reflected in the choice of options? (The opinions of the external scrutiny body will be considered.)
f) Where SMEs are to be included within the scope of the regulations, has a compelling case been made for their inclusion?
g) Where the proposed regulation implements EU obligations, is the proposed regulation the least burdensome way in which to implement them?
h) Have the necessary burden reductions required by One-in, One-out been identified and are they robust? (The opinions of the external scrutiny body will be considered).
The Institute of Directors also sees the government making no progress in reducing bureaucracy.
You could say Reducing Regulation has already been reduced. Truly European.