Clearview National August 2016 - Issue 177 | Page 51

BUSINESSNEWS

Cutting the cost of regulation
»»LIMITATIONS IN THE
government’s approach to reducing the cost
of regulation mean the scope of the Business
Impact Target is open to manipulation, and
may not reflect a realistic business-centred
view of regulatory costs, according to a report
from the National Audit Office.
The Business Impact Target aims to reduce
the cost of regulation by £10 billion between
2015 and 2020. The NAO’s 2014 survey of
business perceptions, published jointly with
the Department for Business, Innovation and
Skills, found that 51% of businesses saw the
level of regulation in the UK as an obstacle to
business success.
The report found that the government does
not know how much cost businesses incur
as a result of its existing regulations. This
means that it cannot know how ambitious its
target for reducing regulatory costs is. So far
this Parliament, the £8.3 billion of expected
regulatory costs imposed on business that are
not included in the scope of the Target greatly
exceed the £0.9 billion savings that are.

According to the NAO, the Target does not
and is not designed to reflect all administrative
and regulatory costs to business, who also
bear costs including tax administration, selfregulation and complying with EU regulation.
There is no overall picture of how these costs
affect businesses, making it difficult for the
government to prioritise its efforts.
In addition, although HM Treasury
guidance says that departments should
monitor the ongoing impact of their

regulatory decisions, they rarely do so.
This means that departments could miss
opportunities to adapt policies in ways that
would help businesses.
According to the NAO, the government
does not ensure the wider social costs
and benefits of regulation are adequately
considered. Although businesses are
concerned about the cost of regulation,
some stakeholders have raised concerns
that deregulation could have harmful wider
effects.
Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit
Office, commented, “The government will
not be in a position to demonstrate that its
work to reduce regulatory costs is providing
value for money, until more robust evidence
is available. The current system is set up to
ensure that government can hit its target.
But it misses the point by not truly reducing
burdens on businesses where they feel them
most.”
Source: National Audit Office

One in six workers is
experiencing depression
»»WHEN YOU HIRE STAFF,YOU
want them to perform at their best so your
investment yields a positive return. That’s just
good business sense,” says Tricia Woolfrey, an
expert in stress-resilience, performance and
productivity. “While you also want them to
enjoy their work, get on with their colleagues
and be self-starters, what you don’t bank on is
that one in six workers experience depression,
anxiety or stress. According to The Office of
National Statistics, this costs the UK economy
an astonishing £26bn,” she continues.
“You may wish for a stronger workforce.
However, it is often the strong and the diligent
who are more likely to suffer. Why? Because
they care about doing a good job and their
sense of duty and responsibility will cause
them to power through. These are the people
who, when firing on all cylinders, will produce
the best results for you. And, when they crash
and burn, will cost you dearly.

“Emotions are like signposts for remedial
action, yet for some reason we are brought
up to ignore them. This is compounded by
deadlines, the effect of change initiatives,
and insufficient support and training. The
consequence of powering through is that the
problem gets out of control and can lead to
breakdown or burnout.
“Stress is telling the s