1. Is a standard
methodology for calculating administrative costs of regulation possible
2. Is it desirable
to have, and use, such a single methodology
3. Should
regulators make a commitment not to prosecute businesses who have followed
simple guidance, except in the most serious cases?
4. Should
regulators give greater emphasis to their advice services?
5. Should
regulators evaluate their advice services on the basis of outcomes
6. Should
inspection be targeted
7. Should
regulators eliminate routine inspections for lower risk premises?
8. Should
businesses with a good compliance record have inspection holidays?
9. Should risk
assessment calculations include external factors such as accreditation or
performance in other regulated areas?
10. Should
regulators consult on their risk assessment methodologies?
11. Should the
penalty regime be reformed to make penalties quicker and tougher?
12. Should
businesses get prior notice of an enforcement action?
13. Should
regulators discuss with business the potential application of a penalty before
it is applied to allow the business to correct the infraction?
14. Should
regulators be held accountable for enforcement actions that are later reversed?
15. Should a
business’ past performance affect the level of a penalty?
16. Should
there be more administrative penalties?
17. Should
personal criminal sanctions be used more often?
18. Should
company directors be held liable for serious infractions from which they are
currently exempt?
19. Should
penalties be set as a proportion of a company's turnover?
20. Should
there be greater use of reputational sanctions?
21. Should
there be restitutive penalties, where companies are required to remediate
damage caused, or to fund improvements elsewhere?
22. Should
there be more positive incentives for businesses to comply with regulation?
23. Are the
criteria for appeal mechanisms (transparent and easy to understand, be easy to
access, resolve issues quickly, be fair and be seen to be fair) the right ones?
24. Should
there be a central reporting point for conflicting regulations?
25. Should
regulators share information to improve their risk profiling?
26. Should
regulators establish common reporting frameworks to minimise duplication of the
data that businesses have to submit?
27. Should
local authorities cross-train their staff, so they can advise and inspect on a
wider range of regulations?
28. Should
there be a single number or code to identify businesses?
29. Should
there be a structural consolidation of regulators where appropriate synergies
could be realised?
30. If so,
what changes should be made?
31. What is
the right level for inspection and policy setting in trading standards and
environmental health?
32. How should
local regulators join up their activities across boundaries?
33. Should
regulators be required to gain approval from a business reference group before
introducing a new form?
34. Should
regulators merge forms, with the aim of creating a single form for each
business or in each sector?
35. Should the
review set out a long-term ambition of a single electronic form?
36. Should the
review set out the ambition to collect and examine all of the current forms to
identify areas of duplicate information?
37. Should
regulators share information on businesses to reduce the form-filling burden?
38. Should
regulators provide businesses with pre-populated ‘check and sign’ forms?
39. Are the
functions listed above the right ones to secure an improvement in the inspection
and enforcement activities of regulation?
40. How could
these new functions best be delivered without creating duplication and overlap?