IT'S A constant cry from business interests: we're being strangled by red tape. It's a cry the Government's apparently taken to heart.

They're even bringing in a controversial Bill to make it easier for them to eliminate unnecessary regulation without having to go through the laborious business of Parliamentary scrutiny.

In the past, they've been accused of burdening business with endless red tape. If that was ever true, it certainly isn't going to be in the future.

The trouble is, one person's strangulation by red tape is another person's protection. The cry against unnecessary regulation has been around in one form or another since at least the 18th century, and probably long before that. It was used by early industrialists, faced with the vested interests of the old trade guilds, which prevented change and the introduction of new processes. They also prevented the exploitation of workers and apprentices. But the breaking down of those old ways helped to bring about the industrial revolution, with all the benefits - and the disadvantages - that involved.

And within 50 years or so from doing away with the old ways, industrialists were complaining about impending new laws. Reduce the hours of boys working in the coal pits from 14 to 12? Stop very young children from working in the pits at all - or in factories, come to that?

But young workers - and their long hours - are essential to our profitability, industrialists cried. These are appalling restrictions on business.

How can we ever be expected to add to the wealth of the nation if such shackles are put upon our freedom to run our businesses as we choose?

That's what slave traders said too, when anti-slavery legislation was brought in. Not only was slavery good for the slaves, they maintained (they could be turned into Christians, given useful work to do), but it brought untold wealth to the country that gave slave traders a free hand. Which was true. It did bring massive wealth both to the slave traders and the ports - Liverpool, Bristol - they used.

But in the end, the moral case overcame the business one. Nowadays, noone would question the rightness of it.

And the case for regulation is still there, if not always so glaringly obvious. There's the damage to family life of parents who work excessive hours.

There are the needs of dependant children and sick and aged relatives.

There are the needs of disabled employees or customers of business, whose lives are already doubly restricted, first by disability, then by the failure of society to make things easier for them. There are all the health and safety issues that still arise.

There's the whole question of pollution and climate change.

When business leaders start complaining about over-regulation, that should never be taken at face value.

Sometimes it may be true. Some laws may be unnecessary and restrictive.

But other regulation is simply the mark of a humane and civilised society, and we remove it at our peril. Governments need to bear in mind that business leaders are as self-interested, and as much a vested interest as trades unions or any other group that lobbies on behalf of its members. Just because they're businessmen, that doesn't mean they're always right.