Conservatives propose sweeping business deregulation programme

The Conservative Party has set out a broad deregulation programme spanning planning, environmental oversight, housing standards, employment rules and taxation as it seeks to rebuild its economic platform in opposition.

Shadow Chancellor Andrew Griffith used the party’s conference in Birmingham to argue for lower regulatory costs and faster development, describing the package as an attempt to reduce the burden placed on businesses, housebuilders and investors.

Among the proposals are plans to abolish Natural England and the Environment Agency in their existing forms. The Conservatives argue that environmental and planning processes have become too slow and complex, although the party would still have to determine where the agencies’ statutory functions would sit under any replacement system.

Housing rules form another major part of the package. The party wants to scrap the Future Homes Standard and replace Section 106 agreements and the Community Infrastructure Levy with a single developer charge.

The Conservatives claim their wider set of housing changes could reduce the cost associated with delivering a new home by as much as £50,000. That figure reflects the party’s assessment of taxes and regulatory costs rather than a guaranteed reduction in the eventual selling price of new properties.

Some of the proposed savings would also involve trade-offs. Section 106 and infrastructure levies help fund facilities and affordable housing associated with development, meaning changes to those mechanisms would have to address how schools, roads and other local infrastructure are financed.

The Future Homes Standard presents a similar argument. Removing energy-efficiency requirements could reduce upfront development costs, while critics including climate thinktank E3G argue that buyers would face higher energy costs over the life of a property.

Employment regulation is also part of the Conservatives’ wider programme. The party has said it would repeal Labour’s Employment Rights Act if returned to government, putting workplace rules alongside planning and environmental regulation in its effort to reduce business costs.

The proposals follow the publication of Kemi Badenoch’s economic document, The Right Way, which places greater emphasis on private enterprise, a smaller state and a more selective approach to government intervention.

Tax policy is being developed on similar lines. Griffith has said a future Conservative government should seek to abolish at least one tax at each Budget, while the party already supports removing stamp duty on primary residences and is considering further changes to inheritance and income taxation.

Businesses are unlikely to judge every part of the programme in the same way. Companies have repeatedly raised concerns about duplicated regulation, slow approvals and compliance costs, particularly where decisions delay investment or require several agencies to examine similar information.

At the same time, companies making long-lived investments often value regulatory stability because construction standards, employment rules and environmental requirements influence product design, supply chains and financial modelling years before a project is completed.

Abolishing regulators does not necessarily abolish the functions Parliament has given them. Flood management, environmental permitting, pollution control, nature protection and planning advice would either need to be removed through legislation or transferred elsewhere in government, making the detailed institutional design important to the eventual cost and complexity of the system.

The programme remains an opposition platform rather than current policy. Abolishing statutory bodies, reversing employment legislation and materially changing planning and environmental rules would require a future Conservative government, parliamentary approval and detailed implementation work.

The proposals nevertheless create a clearer dividing line in the business-policy debate. The Conservatives are arguing that lower regulatory friction should carry more weight in decisions about growth and investment; the test will be whether that can be translated into simpler administration without replacing predictable rules with another period of policy uncertainty.