- within Corporate/Commercial Law topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- in United States
- with readers working within the Retail & Leisure industries
The UK Government has issued an open call for evidence asking for examples of where UK regulation inhibits growth, innovation and investment. This is a good opportunity for businesses to make the case for Government to look again at aspects of law or regulation which may be well-intentioned, but are disproportionate in their effects. The aim is to "reduce the administrative burdens of regulation on business by 25%". But time is short – the call for evidence closes on 16 December 2025.
Will anything really happen if you respond?
Previous Governments have launched similar initiatives to "cut red tape", few of which have proven notably successful – so a degree of scepticism is probably justified. However, whilst we can't rule out a similar outcome here, there are some grounds for greater optimism:
- First and foremost, the economic backdrop of relatively slow growth provides a strong incentive for Government to act on areas of regulatory reform that would be likely to make a material difference (see our comments below on making a convincing case for Government to act).
- Secondly, previous initiatives tended to focus on removal of regulation altogether – which is rarely a realistic option, because, as the current call for evidence recognises, there are often very good reasons why regulation exists. The focus this time around appears to be more on how business is regulated – or, to put it another way, whether similar outcomes can be delivered but with a "lighter touch" in terms of the burdens imposed.
- Finally, although the target of a 25% reduction in business burdens is extremely ambitious, there's almost no prospect of it being met if the Government simply ignores almost all the responses to this consultation exercise.
How to draft an effective response
You'll need to convince the Government that it's worth devoting time and resources to reviewing the aspects of regulation you'd like to see changed. The response form asks specifically for information on direct and indirect costs of regulation – for example, how many staff hours are spent on compliance and how far this could be reduced if the law were to be changed, or if it were applied in a more efficient, proportionate manner by the relevant authorities. The more information you can provide on this aspect, the better. If it's difficult to quantify the impact on costs etc, it may be sufficient to make a "common sense" case for reform instead. For example, in some cases, this might be based on how investors typically attach a risk premium to uncertainty; if clearer, more robust guidance can be provided by regulators, this would be likely to reduce the risk premium for the activity in question, making it easier to attract investment.
If it would be relatively straightforward to implement the type of change you are seeking i.e. it might qualify as a "quick win", this would also be worth pointing out. Bear in mind that in some areas, Government may be more receptive to requests for changes to official guidance or the regulatory practices of relevant authorities (as opposed to requests for changes to the law, where pressure on Parliamentary time will often be a constraining factor).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
