Govt regulations ‘without purpose’
By Laura Miller
Government departments frequently waste taxpayer’s money on useless and expensive regulations, a report has said.
A fifth of government regulations are decided without any consideration of how much they will cost or who will benefit from them, according to the findings.
The statistics, discovered in a report by National Audit Office (NOA), have forced the regulation watchdog to issue new guidelines and training to staff to stop taxpayers paying for expensive regulations that lack clear purpose.
‘Wide variation remains between the best and worst impact assessments,’ the report reads.
Eighty per cent of the government’s pre-regulation planning failed to consider more than one type of response to a problem, preventing comparisons that could have revealed a better quality, more cost-effective solution.
Tim Burr, head of the NAO, said today that while the quality of assessments for proposed regulations has improved, “the standard varies widely…a minority still contain a superficial evidence base or standard of analysis.”
He blamed low research standards in government departments, especially into how the regulation will work in practice.
Many impact assessments ignored issues of how people would be encouraged to comply with the new regulations, and the cost and ways to enforce them.
“Departments should raise the standard of evidence used to assess…the objectives of new regulations [and] give greater thought to how regulations will be enforced after implementation,” Mr Burr added.
For example, only one third of assessments assessed the cost of enforcement for the preferred option.
According to the NAO there have been improvements in the analysis of costs and benefits.
In 2008, 67 per cent of impact assessments quantified costs and 60 per cent quantified benefits. Under the previous arrangements, the figures were 56 per cent for quantified costs and 40 per cent for quantified benefits.
