Oh no! Not another Deregulation Initiative?
And reduced price books
This morning’s ‘launch’ of the Regulatory Innovation Office (RIO) is probably good news, if a little over-hyped.
The first part of the headline of the accompanying press release suggests that the RIO will ensure that ‘Game-changing tech [will] reach the public faster’ as a result of the RIO’s activities. But we are not talking about programmes which will support the deployment of new technologies. I would, for instance, love to see HMG offer advice to small and medium sized firms wondering whether, and if so how, to take advantage of recent developments in AI, and maybe robotics, drones …? But that is for another day, and maybe for another department: Business rather than Science?
The second part of the headline admits that the aim of the ‘dedicated new unit [will be to] curb red tape’. It will do this by working with other departments and regulators to address regulatory barriers to the growth of new technologies, including engineering biology, space, AI and connected/autonomous vehicles including drones.
This sounds great but much will depend on the relations that develop between the RIO and the rest of government, including regulators. It will be an interesting test of how well individuals within the Starmer government (including officials) work across institutional boundaries.
To help this (?) the RIO will not be a free-standing (arms length) body but will form part of the Department of Science etc. and will incorporate the existing Regulatory Horizons Council and the Regulators Pioneer Fund.
Rather more worryingly, the RIO will also ‘set priorities for regulators which align with the government’s broader ambitions’. This has not always gone well in the past. The 2008 financial crisis was to a great extent caused by Prime Ministerially-encouraged light touch financial regulation, and building deregulation helped cause the Grenfell tragedy.
And also …
‘[Today’s] announcement comes ahead of further plans to reduce the burden of red tape’.
This is of course much easier said then done. Those interested in the chequered history of previous deregulation/red tape initiatives (dating back to 1948!) might like dip into these web pages.
By The Way …
Two of my books How to be a Civil Servant and Speaking Truth to Power have been on special offer at Amazon for the last few weeks, mainly to help impecunious recent graduates settle into the civil service. Those offers will end on 13 October so please buy them now, if interested.
Been thinking a lot about regulation and my forthcoming report for Scottish Government, the Foundations Of The Digital State spends a lot of time looking at a government standards-setting body to achieve co-ordination without communication.
It is interesting to consider technical standards as a form of regulation. In 1994 the <regulation> of the web was a 660 word protocol for http and a handful of pages describing html.
Fast forward to now and the standards to which a simple web page has to comply runs to over 1.7m words.
So when your 17 year old neice builds a website for your golf club she first masters a book of red tape about 4 inches thick?
No she doesn't. The tools she uses embed the standards in them. The problem with regulation is not regulation, it's the cost of compliance.
The standards and regulations governing the phone I am typing on in toto would be a pile of A4 documents taller than me.
Management of complexity is the core skill of the modern age.
Great piece - this may also be interesting to readers who are interested in the chequered history of deregulatory interventions:
https://unchecked.substack.com/p/grenfell-was-the-product-of-a-broken