Noticeboard rETroroCkET / SHuTTErSToCk your letters Regulation, Regulation, Regulation It may be a little dangerous in these interesting times to emulate Tony Blairs Education, Education, Education mantra, but we live in interesting times, so why not? We ask ourselves what people voted for in the EU referendum, but it seems to have been interpreted by all and sundry as voting for whatever I meant when I was campaigning in particular by any number of free marketeers, keen to shake off unnecessary regulation, foisted on us by them (the EU). So, accepting that Brexit means Brexit (which means what, exactly?), is there a case for freeing business from the dead hand of regulation, particularly in the consumer sphere, where we mostly operate? What is the purpose of regulation? Free marketeers cite Adam Smith and the invisible hand of self-interest that leads businesses togood practices, since this is good business, and brings customers toyour door. There is much to commend this and the concept of the free market, but it misses an important fact about Adam Smith he was writing in the 18th century. Life was a little different then. You almost certainly knew the people you were trading with, and the market was essentially local, from a consumer point of view. Also there was, broadly speaking, equality or symmetry of information: you knew what you wanted, and you knew a fair bit about it; goods themselves werent very complicated that has certainly changed! Also, we live in a world of national and multi-national corporations, and products of which we have limited knowledge. Forinstance, would anybody like to explain in detail how a mobile phone works a simple one then move on to a smartphone? So, I would argue that the purpose of regulation is to correct those asymmetries, and to move the balance somewhat more towards the consumer and, in some cases, towards employees and smaller businesses. The Food Information Regulations are there to tell us what on earth we are about to eat before we get there, to give us information if we want it about the person who is responsible for it, what it is, what is in it, whether its contents might lead to some risk to us, how long it will last, and how it fits into our nutritional regimen. Additive labelling and controls allow for safe use of a variety of improvement agents and limit exposure to them where they show risk. The Consumer Rights Act offers a route to redress and a series of rights that must always exist in contracts with consumers, to give more balance to the obligations of the parties, and to limit the extent to which that can be undone. And, in case we forget, there is regulation, which if it doesnt enforce fairness does at least put a duty on businesses, of all sizes, not to be unfair. It even goes so far as to prohibit the withholding of information needed to make an informed decision about the transaction. Then there are New Approach directives and latterly regulations that are a real burden on businesses, laying down procedures, documentation and declarations, which must take place before a product can even be marketed. That must surely be an unwarranted interference with trade. Or is it? The New Approach has been applied across a range of goods where the purchaser/user cant possibly protect themselves, including: toys; electrical equipment; machinery; personal protective equipment; and electrical interference (EMC). By the time any of this goes wrong, it is simply too late. I would argue that, predominantly, these regulations do indeed mandate what would be good business practice anyway. They even give (fairly) straightforward rules and methods for achieving products that are reasonably safe, mostly signposting international standards as reasonable evidence of safety. Then you have to declare who you are, and that you have complied with those requirements. I do not underestimate that this can be complex; our job in relation tosuch products is to see through the wood and identify the right trees or at least to assist enterprises with that process but I would argue that the extra work over good business practice for the safety ofusers/consumers is not quite as extensive as may be portrayed. Iwant to make a toy/electrical appliance/hoverboard with little or noevidence that it wont harm its users does not seem to fit the bill fora responsible trader. So, under the new regimen outside the EU am I in favour of better regulation? Yes I am! Am I convinced that this is served by a wholesale scrapping of EU regulations, replacing them with an unregulated free market? Oddly, no, I am not. The challenge if we set ourselves apart from the EU and the single market entirely is to find a regimen that: does indeed protect consumers who cannot be expected to know much about food technology, electrical technology and safety, coatings in their toys, plastics in food contact materials and the niceties of package constructions for holidays; and one that allows for adequate redress to be available when things go wrong with travel arrangements, goods and so on. Even Ryanair has recently suggested that consumers were well protected by the EU. Will post-Brexit Britain do the same? HAlfpoinT / SHuTTErSToCk Andy Wilson, MITSA Senior trading standards officer Bristol City Council Boots and formula milk At Boots, we have stringent processes in place to ensure that we do not breach the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula (England) Regulations 2007, and we adopt the principles of the World Health Organizations International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes when we organise or store merchandising. Our store colleagues are provided with clear instructions on how they must execute display material, so that it is both legal and ethical. We also make sure that we do not have multiple areas of our stores offering infant milk for sale to avoid any situation where our displays could be seen as being promotional. That said, we are also realists and accept that no process, however robust, is entirely flawless. Our colleagues make changes to our displays every two weeks that consist of thousands of individual pieces of advertising material. With more than 70,000 colleagues in stores across the UK, there will be times when things do not go to plan. This is in no way deliberate and, when identified, we rectify the issues as soon as we possibly can. Any perceived breaches of the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula (England) Regulations 2007 are taken incredibly seriously. It is what our customers expect of us and we take pride in upholding the highest of retail standards, alongside other members of the British Retail Consortium. There is no commercial strategy to breach the law in this respect, or even push the boundaries as to what is acceptable. Providing great value and choice for our customers is what we strive to achieve. Trading practices that breach the law are not part of this ethos and would considerably damage our brand and the trust that our customers place in us. Jonathan Halls Senior trading law manager Walgreens Boots Alliance Retail Pharmacy International Clarification In our September issue, TS Today carried an assertion, by Baby Milk Action, that Boots had repeatedly violated the Infant Formula and Formula Regulations (2007). The pressure group had cited an Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) investigation, from 2013, and several photographs of what it believes are violations taken in Boots stores this year. The 2013 case concerning a Facebook advert targeting new mothers was informally resolved after Boots volunteered to withdraw the campaign and provide additional staff training. TS Today accepts that these allegations, even if proven, do not constitute systemic failure by Boots and is happy to make that clear. gOT AN OPINION? We want to hear it. Email tstoday@tsi. org.uk or visit CTSIs forum page to add your voice to the discussion. We reserve the right to edit letters.