| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Northern Ireland (Deregulation and Contracting Out)
10.15 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): I beg to move,
- That the draft Deregulation and Contracting Out (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.
The order has two clear objectives: to introduce deregulatory measures that will remove burdens on business, and to remove statutory obstacles to contracting out. In so doing, the order follows and builds on the general thrust of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. In Northern Ireland, we have already launched a programme of deregulation and contracting out. Much has been achieved and much more can be achieved. I shall later touch on that.
The Government have sought to release British business from the shackles of unnecessary rules and regulations. Our aim is to work towards fewer, better and simpler regulations--both new and existing. Small firms in particular stand to benefit from such moves. Excessive paperwork and unjustified interference burden and harm management, taking it away from running businesses. It costs managers time and money and stops them employing people. Surveys carried out in Northern Ireland by the Northern Ireland Small Business Institute have identified regulations and associated paperwork as ranking among the top four problems facing small business.
The Government's competing for quality policy is focused on improving the quality and value for money of our public services. Contracting out is a keystone of that policy, but there are some areas of Government business where the opportunity to test whether a function can be done more efficiently or effectively is being denied by some small but significant legal obstacles.
The order will bring an element of consistency between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Its measures are reasonable and sensible, and the evidence of that is the small but valuable response to our consultation exercise, which was open to all members of the public. Comments were specifically invited from 300 individuals or bodies with a particular interest in the order and 18 responses were received. Each was carefully considered and individually addressed, but no amendments were considered necessary.
I thank hon. Members for their written comments. In particular, I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) for his correspondence on the handling of Northern Ireland legislation. I trust that, from the responses that he has received from my noble Friend Baroness Denton, he appreciates that his comments have been given lengthy and careful consideration. I shall later draw attention to our stance on the use of enabling powers in the order.
The House may find it helpful if I deal with the subjects in the measure in the order in which they arise, starting with deregulation. As I said earlier, good progress is being made. Through the deregulation initiative, businesses in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom are already benefiting. For example, 500,000 of the smallest businesses no longer need to have their accounts audited.
Taxation and national insurance systems are being streamlined--one important example is that there is now a single point of registration for VAT, national insurance contributions and pay-as-you-earn. Some 30 sets of health and safety regulations have been repealed as part of a programme to cut the rulebook by 40 per cent.
I know that the deregulation policy may give rise to some misapprehensions, so I emphasise that deregulation does not mean the reduction or removal of necessary safeguards. Our priority is always the proper protection of the public interest. Building on the 13 specific deregulatory changes benefiting businesses in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the 1994 Act, the order adds a further six deregulation provisions that will be of particular benefit to Northern Ireland business.
Three articles introduce further deregulatory change to Northern Ireland legislation in line with the 1994 Act or deregulation orders made under it. Article 4 removes statutory constraints on measuring a pint of beer. The Government believe that the consumer is quite able to determine what a pint of beer is. Article 6 removes restrictions on Sunday sporting activities. Article 7 removes constraints on totaliser operators in relation to deductions from stakes. That provision follows a Great Britain order made under the 1994 Act's enabling powers.
The remaining three provisions are unique to Northern Ireland. Article 3 removes the requirement to license premises used for horticultural processing. Article 5 removes redundant controls on local auctions. Article 8 removes the requirement for taxi drivers to sit a separate driving test to obtain a taxi driver's licence, while safety continues to be assured through the good conduct and character check tests.
The other side of the matter is how the measures are to be enforced. Businesses complain that they often incur unnecessary costs to meet the demands of overzealous enforcement officers. They also suggest that they should be able to challenge enforcement officers' decisions at an early stage and that when a formal decision has been made, their rights of appeal should be clarified and the appeal procedure should be speedy and inexpensive. The Government recognise those concerns. We believe in ensuring that the manner of enforcement is as fair, transparent and consistent as possible. That is stated in article 9.
Article 10 sets out powers to introduce model appeal provisions that will provide a clear procedure to help businesses to appeal enforcement decisions.
Mr. Anthony Steen (South Hams):
I am listening to my right hon. Friend with considerable interest because this is a matter of great importance to Conservative Members. In England, when we dealt with appeals, several Conservative Members suggested a local mechanism using the magistrates courts, so that, if an over-zealous official, as in the Lanarkshire blue cheese case in Scotland, got it wrong, the case would not to go on and on through various appeal courts but be dealt with locally by the local magistrates. Is he aware that, although the matter was raised two years ago, it has not been resolved and that the Minister responsible in England has proposed a statutory instrument that is no more than a discussion document on whether the appeal system should be local or national? Could he assure the House that in
Sir John Wheeler:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is something of a renowned expert in such matters and devotes a good deal of his remarkable zeal and energy in testing out such procedures and assumptions. I am not personally familiar with the Lanarkshire blue cheese case, and as far as I know, we do not have a similar problem in Northern Ireland. I think that I can assure him, however, that the procedures that I hope that we shall be pursuing in Northern Ireland will entirely fulfil his expectations of expedition and simplicity. That is perhaps one of the benefits of Northern Ireland being able to pursue its own administrative arrangements in the way that I am describing.
The other part of the order relates to contracting out. Contracting out is a major component of the Government's policy on competing for quality. The policy is set out in the White Paper "Competing for Quality", which was published in 1991 as a companion document to the citizens charter White Paper. Together, those important policy documents had a single aim: the safeguarding and improvement of our public services, for the benefit of the people who use them, at a cost which the taxpayer can afford.
The competing for quality programme has been the main driving force in delivering the very real benefits of competition within government. The evidence is clear. In just three years, from 1992 to 1995, of a total of£2.6 billion of UK activities reviewed, annual cost savings of £540 million were found. In Northern Ireland,£58 million-worth of services have been reviewed, achieving total savings of about £9 million a year. That is a substantial achievement, yet savings have not led to poorer service or lower quality--quite the reverse. Users have benefited from higher quality, backed by specific contract conditions and innovation in the way in which services are delivered. The savings produced are re-channelled, either to enhance services for the same spend or to provide more services overall.
One example of the benefits to be had from competition can be found in the contracting out of the computer bureau service that the Department of Finance and Personnel provided to Northern Ireland Departments. The value of the service was £6.25 million, and £1.77 million-worth of savings were produced a year.
Another example is the Department of Agriculture's market testing of an inspection service related to the payment of subsidies. The market test was won in-house, making savings of more than £250,000 in 1995-96 from a total service cost of £1.3 million--a saving of a little more than 22 per cent.
With so much to gain, it is important not to let the on-going process of opening up competition be obstructed by unnecessary statutory obstacles. The order does not impose contracting out, it merely allows it. It will be up to central Departments, district councils and non-departmental public bodies to choose whether to use the freedom that the order provides to enable contracting out to take place. I would welcome a move to competition, and I feel that the public bodies concerned will wish to do so in their own interest and those of the taxpayer, but the order will enable, not compel.
Measures in the order such as articles 11 and 12 are simply common-sense amendments. They enable the Official Receiver and Registrar of Companies to delegate functions to their own staff, in so far as they do not already have power to do so. They will also enable the registrar and the Official Receiver to contract out certain functions, such as the incorporation of companies, receipt of company documents and statements of affairs in cases of bankruptcy and insolvency.
The provisions in articles 13 to 15 deal with the important areas of accountability and contract conditions and make it clear that the accountability of Ministers is not diminished if a service is contracted out. Nor will contracting out affect the responsibilities of office holders or Departments in relation to services affected by the order. It is the work that is delegated, not the responsibility.
Confidentiality is also a matter about which concern has been expressed about the contracting-out process. Article 16 gives effect to schedule 4, which contains provisions modifying certain restrictions on the disclosure of information to contractors. The measures provide that restricted information may be disclosed to authorised contractors where this is necessary to enable the contract to be performed. They also ensure that contractors are subject to the same safeguards and sanctions in relation to confidentiality as is the contracting body.
Article 18 and schedule 5 of the order remove specific statutory obstacles in relation to the agricultural census and dog control services provided by district councils and the administration--but not adjudication of entitlement--to housing benefit. Most of those reforms follow the practice in Great Britain, but there are two departures in the order from the approach taken in the 1994 Act, the first on the Sunday betting provisions. Those provisions were subject to an extensive public consultation exercise, and the results showed that a substantial body of public opinion in Northern Ireland was opposed to any relaxation of the present legal position. The Government have listened, and a policy decision has been made not to include the provisions in the order.
Secondly--this is the enabling powers issue to which I referred earlier--the Government have decided not to include a general order-making power similar to the 1994 Act. We have taken into account the legislative implications and potential loss of parliamentary scrutiny. Such a general power would have enabled Northern Ireland Orders in Council to be amended by subordinate legislation without reference to Parliament, where the aim is to effect deregulatory change or to remove an obstacle to contracting out.
That situation would have been substantially at odds with that in Great Britain, where an effective system of parliamentary checks has been put in place. Again, we have listened to concerns and responded by making it the rule not to include a general order-making power. Hon Members will be right to surmise that every rule has exceptions, and article 17 is that exception. This refers to a special order-making power for social security legislation alone. Its inclusion recognises the need--out of fairness--to provide for parity of treatment for social security provision between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Not to include such a provision would delay the start of Northern Ireland businesses enjoying the benefits enjoyed by their Great Britain counterparts in an area where it is policy and practice that concurrent action is the norm. In addition, without the power, should changes be introduced under the order-making powers in the 1994 Act which impact on claimants, differential treatment for Great Britain and Northern Ireland claimants could result.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |