| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.2 pm
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas (Crosby): I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. Unlike the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), I shall have to use notes but, as a consequence, most of my references will be reliable. I promise not to use the words "sniffy", "Euro-federast" or "risible". I can offer plain speaking from one who has worked in business, albeit one who has never run her own business. I have been extensively involved in business and I take a passionate interest in regulation. Those hon. Members who read parliamentary questions will know that I have asked more questions about that subject than about any other since becoming a Member of Parliament. The Opposition Members who usually participate in debates on small businesses are here, but it is sad that there are not more present--not just more Members on the Opposition Benches, but more Members on both sides of the House.
I shall confine my comments to the first part of the motion, which says:
Let us examine the record on the imposition of regulatory burdens. In 1995, the previous Administration introduced 21 Bills that had an impact on business. There followed a slight slump: only eight Bills were introduced in 1996 and five in early 1997. The present Administration introduced five such Bills in 1997, 13 in 1998 and 12 in 1999.
Those are interesting statistics but, like other statistics that we have heard this evening, they are meaningless unless they are set in context. Nevertheless, it is right to say that the amount of regulatory legislation introduced by the previous and the present Administration is roughly balanced.
So much for Bills. What about assessment?
Mr. Keith Darvill (Upminster):
Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to discuss the merits of the compliance cost assessments introduced by the previous Government?
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am about to deal with that matter.
Under the previous Administration, and for a short time under the present Government, compliance cost assessments were the only vehicle available to assess the impact of Bills on business. Unfortunately, they were not carried out independently, as is currently being advocated, and there were no exemptions for small business in those assessments. Compliance cost assessments were required only when costs might be incurred by a business, and there were no assessment orders which evaluated how money could be saved. It was this Administration who introduced such assessment late in 1998.
The compliance cost assessment was initiated by the Conservative Government in 1993 and was considered to be central to the deregulation initiatives, which we would all applaud. The assessment introduced in 1993 was an assessment of likely cost to business of proposed legislation, and was used to help parliamentary consideration of regulatory proposals. It was considered a vital part of the consultation process and gave businesses the opportunity to respond to proposals. In their speeches this evening, Opposition Members have commended that approach.
I note with regret that, although CCAs were introduced in 1993, it was decided only in 1994 that they would also have to show the effect of proposed legislation on small business. Clearly, when the assessments were introduced in 1993, small business was not at the forefront of the present Opposition's mind.
Unfortunately, like many of the "buzz" initiatives introduced by the previous Administration, apart from the inclusion of small businesses after a period of reflection, the CCA did not develop. It remained a document that discussed cost. There was neither the opportunity nor the desire to review its effectiveness, even though, as we have heard, there was considerable concern about that.
Yesterday, in the Library, I picked up a typical CCA at random. It related to the Firework Safety Regulations 1996. The document is dominated by cost consideration, and there is some reference to consultation. Given what we have heard this evening from the Opposition,
who extol the importance of consultation, I am disappointed to tell the House that that document states that
The compliance cost assessment was a minimalist approach. It referred to cost, but not to the innate value of, or the need for, regulation. In 1998, after a year in government, the Cabinet Office reviewed the deregulation agenda and the regulation appraisals initiative of the previous Administration and concluded, in the words of the teacher's report, "Must try harder."
Deregulation, which had been made almost impossible because of the restraints of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, was subsumed by the far more onerous task undertaken by the Government--that of producing better business regulation. In 1998, the Government published "The Better Regulation Guide". For the first time, standard reports can be compared and contrasted.
If we are to have a meaningful debate, we must acknowledge that an attempt was made to understand the impact of regulation on business. However, no such attempt was made to ensure that reports from each Department were standardised. Any requests about costs, cumulative costs or impact have been impossible to tackle. The answer that the hon. Member for Buckingham suggested: "No, I can't tell you what the total cost would be" was valid. Even if he tried to find the answer today, he would fail because insufficient analytical rigour was exercised previously. That remains a problem. It is inordinately difficult to get the myriad Departments that have a significant impact on business to produce reports in a way that permits review and understanding of the total impact of any proposed legislation on business.
The compliance cost assessment has been swept aside and replaced by regulatory impact assessments. That is a step improvement, which requires not only the focus on cost that existed previously--we are building on previous measures--but a focus on benefits. Compliance cost assessments also refer to non-business costs, which had previously been ignored, and consider who would be affected by the Bill. More importantly, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out earlier, they require over-zealous civil servants who are keen on increasing the legislative tally to consider non-regulatory approaches to legislation. They include best practice and codes of conduct, which might be sufficient to achieve the Government's objective while not placing direct, burdensome regulations on industry.
What regulatory impact assessments have been undertaken to date? No Bill that has a bearing on business comes before the House without an associated regulatory impact assessment. The RIAs are detailed and expansive and they are required to include non-regulatory alternatives. They also emphasise consultation.
Let us consider the great deregulation crusade that was supposed to follow the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. For anyone who worked in business, the title alone was a joy. However, what did it mean and what could it achieve? It could not deregulate any Act that had
been passed before 1994. Furthermore, any orders made under the Act could not impose costs. That restraint means that little deregulation has happened since 1994.
We are committed to trying to deconstruct the house that Jack built on regulation that was not reviewed. We must consider how many orders have been successfully executed under the 1994 Act. I am sorry to say that great enabling legislation, which was designed to cut red tape, led to only 42 orders because it was so constraining. I hope that, during this Parliament, a better deregulation Act will be passed. I hope that it will build on the 1994 measure, extend its powers and enable the Administration to provide what we all support: effective reduction in some of the bureaucracy and red tape that business experiences. The 1994 Act has not enabled us to do that.
I have asked each Department to inform me about the orders they seek or might seek, because people have discussed potential regulation. The long and the short of it is that, with the best will in the world, only so many orders can be made under the 1994 Act.
I shall consider some of the pleadings--and what pleadings they were--of the hon. Member for Buckingham, who is a zealot in matters that relate to small businesses. I offer that as a compliment. Like me, the hon. Gentleman is keen to learn the cost of all new regulation. That is important. I do not have to encourage him to visit the Library, examine the regulatory impact assessments and find the information for himself.
The hon. Gentleman's second heart's desire is to discover whether the Government intend to reduce regulatory costs in the coming year. If he puts such a request before them he will find, like me, that they are very amenable and will respond to his correspondence. If he has no joy in the short term, perhaps he would like to consult me later and I shall let him have a copy of my response.
In respect of the hon. Gentleman's desire to remove gold plating of European Union directives--I think that there is a general consensus here--he will be pleased that the Government, by and large, tend to be objective and conciliatory. They are keen to achieve the best and adopt a belt-and-braces approach. We know that that can have a significant impact on small businesses. I hope that they will do their best to encourage civil servants to take a minimalist approach when introducing European legislation. Having spoken to the regulatory impact unit and the better regulation taskforce, I have been assured that they would like to deliver on that pledge.
I must offer a plug here: I am also pleased that the Government have at least tried to take the research assessment initiative to Europe. We have produced guidelines for European legislation, which must have an assessment attached to it before it is considered here. Unfortunately, we have not made the progress with our European partners that we would have wished to make because the initiative has not been adopted universally, but everybody present would want that to happen. However, discussions are on-going. The hon. Gentleman is also keen for six-monthly reports reflecting the progress of deregulation to be made. Those may come from the Cabinet Office in due course.
That this House opposes the growing regulatory burdens that the Government has added to business costs.
I shall examine the authenticity of the claim and then refer to points made by the hon. Member for Buckingham when he presented his Regulations on Small Businesses (Reduction) Bill to the House on 27 April 1999.
it has not been possible to undertake the usual consultation with industry on this occasion.
Much was promised but not always delivered, as a random sample proves.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |