In a recent Public Domain column, Colin Talbot discussed the prospects for light-touch regulation in the public sector (‘Blew the light-touch paper’, March 27—April 2). I feel it’s time to shift the debate to a more informative one of ‘appropriate’ regulation in the light of the context and consequences of failure: good versus bad.
It was never appropriate to advocate light-touch regulation as a general policy, irrespective of the risks. The problem has been a politically dominated ‘Sovietisation’ of target setting. This has substituted independent and unambiguous assessment of performance with use of ‘proxy’ standards purporting to demonstrate ever greater performance and success. Nobody is fooled — not even the people paid to believe in them.
This is not to advocate a crude substitution of market mechanisms but a new deal that uses intelligence, judgement and data to help produce good, appropriate regulation, audit and public accountability.
But this requires a proper context for regulation and performance management, taking into account a shared risk assessment, a shared understanding of the consequences of failure and due regard for the potential for improvement.
Standards of measurement should be independently set, subject neither to political nor professional capture, and adequate resources must be devoted to independent measurement and assessment. Reporting should be prompt and clear.
In other words, Talbot should not be reflecting on a shift from light to hard-touch but on advocating good, appropriate regulation.
Roger Steer, Gravesend, Kent
