1.  Regulation is not simply a burden and it can also offer benefits and protections for businesses, workers and consumers. For example, health and safety regulation has yielded the best safety record in Europe and the number of fatalities at work fell from 1,000 a year in 1974 to 250 in 2006. In seeking to reduce the burden of regulation, departments should not lose sight of the purposes for which regulations have been introduced. When considering new regulations, or amending regulations to reduce burdens, they should assess the benefits as well as the full costs of regulation, and only consider changes in the light of a balanced assessment of both.

2.  The Better Regulation Executive introduced the Administrative Burdens Reduction Programme on the basis of the potential benefits for business estimated in a similar exercise undertaken by the Dutch Government. It did so before any assessment of the actual outcomes of the Dutch exercise, and evaluations of the Dutch experience now show that businesses have not noticed the full impact of changes. In considering new proposals for regulatory reform, the Better Regulation Executive should assess the likely impact of the proposed changes, including a rigorous assessment of both benefits and costs.

3.  The Better Regulation Executive considered that the Programme offered the potential for a £16 billion increase in GDP for an initial investment of £35 million. However, the strength of the link between the level of regulation and productivity growth is not certain. The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform has commissioned further research to explore the link between regulation and productivity. In taking this forward, the Better Regulation Executive should quantify the impact of administrative burdens on productivity, and test the robustness of the £16 billion estimated potential for increasing GDP.

4.  The consultancy costs of the measurement phase were £17 million but staff costs were not recorded. The Better Regulation Executive and departments should record the internal costs of implementing the Programme and of the regulatory reform agenda.

5.  The £20 billion estimate of the total administrative burden is not statistically reliable. This calculation is based on small sample sizes and non-random sample selection, and as a result cost estimates are only indicative. In addition, cost estimates do not capture the benefits of regulation. The Better Regulation Executive should not use these calculations as a baseline against which to quantify the success of the Programme or, if it does so, it should make clear the uncertainty in the estimates.

6.  Over 60% of small businesses cited the level of regulation as an obstacle to their success. Departments should follow the HMRC's example and assess the impact of regulations on small businesses. They should also give priority to relieving pressures on small businesses where it is practical to do so.

7.  The Better Regulation Executive set the target for most departments to reduce burdens by 25% by 2010 without assessment of what was achievable in each case, whereas HMRC's lower targets are based on what is achievable. Credible yet demanding targets can only be set on the basis of an assessment of what is possible, and the Better Regulation Executive should move towards a system of specific, evidence-based targets for each department at the earliest opportunity.

8.  85% of businesses are not confident that Government would reduce regulatory burdens and 75% thought that burdens will increase. This Programme will only be successful if businesses notice an impact on the ground. The Better Regulation Executive and departments should therefore tailor their communications to businesses to alert them to changes in compliance requirements resulting from the Programme.