| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Resolved,
That this House welcomes progress the Government is making in implementing its proposals for elected regional assemblies set out in the White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions, based on the principles of increasing prosperity, pride and democracy in the regions; applauds the opportunity afforded to people in the three northern regions of England to have their say about whether they want an elected assembly for their region; welcomes the decision to hold the referendum by all-postal ballot while noting the Government's preparedness to give a clear undertaking not to proceed with all-postal referendums as planned if the Electoral Commission produces convincing evidence leading to the conclusion that it would be unsafe to do so; welcomes the Government's decision to have one assistance and delivery point per 50,000 electors, giving the choice as to whether to return their vote by post, to deliver it by hand, or to vote at a place supervised by electoral officials; further notes the Boundary Committee's estimates of the savings from local government restructuring in regions which choose to establish an elected regional assembly; looks forward to the publication of the draft Bill which would establish elected
- assemblies, once the date for the referendums has been set by Parliament; commends the Government's endeavours to ensure that people voting in the referendums have information on which to base their choice; and notes that the principal confusion about regional policy appears to be on the Opposition benches.
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, Solicitor-General's Question Time takes place tomorrow at 12.20 pm. I was in the Lobby earlier and have just received a letter from the Solicitor-General's secretariat to say that my question has been transferred. I appreciate that the transfer is not your responsibility, but such short notice is surely a discourtesy not only to me but to the work of the House of the Commons. Furthermore, the Solicitor-General is responsible for prosecutions, with which the question deals, yet she has transferred it. Will you advise me on that?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, that is not a matter for the Chair. However, he has registered his concern, which will now be on the record.
30 Jun 2004 : Column 366
Business Deregulation
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
5.1 pm
Mr. Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury) (Con): I beg to move,
That this House regrets the decision of the Government to replace 'deregulation' with 'better regulation' and condemns its failure to deliver deregulation for British business; is alarmed that the Government is unable to quantify the number of new regulations generated since 1997; deplores the fact that the total cost of major regulations to business approved since 1998 now exceeds £30 billion, and notes with concern the negative consequences this is having and will have on small businesses in particular; further condemns the Government's decision to agree to a European Constitutional Treaty that will extend the legislative competences of the European Commission; calls on the Government to take urgent measures to reduce the burden of domestic and European regulation on British business; and further condemns Labour MEPs for voting in the European Parliament in favour of the Agency Workers Directive and the extension of the Working Time Directive in the UK.
I draw to hon. Members' attention my declaration in the Register of Members' Interests. I have given the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry notice that I cannot be present for the winding-up speeches, and I am therefore disappointed that she has chosen not to turn up and focus on such an important subject. It is yet another example of her refusal to come to the House for a debate in Opposition time. She was not present when we held an Opposition day debate on post offices. As ever, the Government pretend that they need put up a Secretary of State only when a member of the shadow Cabinet is present. That is nothing to do with them. I am the Secretary of State's shadow and she should be here because business deregulation is a major issue for the future competitiveness of this country. There is a lack of will on the Government's part to take that seriously.
I welcome the debate, on Conservative initiative and in Opposition time, on the vital topic of business deregulation. If previous Conservative Administrations had not clearly understood and acted on the importance of setting business free, Britain would remain the sick man of Europe rather than being one of its eminent models of flexibility, at least until recently.
However, it is already clear that the 21st century global economy will be unrecognisable from that of the latter half of the 20th century. Liberalisation of markets through the World Trade Organisation, the enlargement of the European Union, the birth of the tiger economies, the prodigious rise of China and India, which compete not only on the basis of low wages but on high skills—each has 750,000 graduates every year—are all factors that drive up competitive pressures as never before.
Against such a background, it is time to audit the Government's actions—or, more accurately, inaction—on deregulating business since 1997 and to examine the implications of their policies for our productivity growth and competitiveness. I shall highlight the Conservatives' political will and practical, deliverable programme in government to identify and reverse the drivers of over-regulation of British business, which has suffered under the Labour Government.
30 Jun 2004 : Column 367
In the 2001 manifesto, the Labour party made the following commitment:
"We will cut the time small firms spend on dealing with regulation".
That followed the Prime Minister's pledge in 1998:
"Where regulations or alternative measures are introduced, this should be done in a light touch way".
In the light of the Prime Minister's enthusiasm for a political debate based on reality rather than myth, I hope that the Minister—I had hoped it would be the Secretary of State—will acknowledge that the evidence suggests that, far from decreasing the amount of time that UK businesses, large and small, spend dealing with red tape, the Labour Government have increased it by an average of six hours a week per employer.
A CBI survey from the end of 2003 showed that 95 per cent. of UK businesses—an incontestable statistic in any survey—confirmed that they were having to spend more time dealing with red tape than they were five years ago. The most recent KPMG survey of small and medium-sized enterprises found that
"complying with regulations and red tape"
was the single issue of greatest concern, eclipsing other worries such as skills shortages, the rise in insurance premiums, and pension scheme deficits. In fact, the burden of regulation, which particularly and disproportionately affects small businesses, is now getting so out of control that a Select Committee report from the other place, published earlier this year, on the accountability—or rather, the lack of it—of regulators includes the following evidence from a group of financial advisers:
"The FSA handbook is vast and almost incomprehensible—the only way to look at it is via the search engine on the FSA website as apparently if printed out it would stand nine feet high".
It is dispiriting—if not surprising, against such crushing regulatory odds—that a fortnight ago, HSBC cut 3,500 jobs from its British work force, taking the total of UK job losses to 7,500 over the past 12 months. HSBC blamed the £200 million extra cost of new financial regulations.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath) (Con): In the light of the important points that my hon. Friend has just made, would he agree that one of the things that particularly irritates businesses—especially small businesses, including many in my own area—is that when they try to ask the relevant Government Department legitimate questions about regulations, they are often told that they have to look at the Department's website? Many small businesses do not have the time or the facilities to spend hours looking at Government websites. The Government have an obsession with this. Does my hon. Friend agree that the point that he has just made particularly concerns small businesses?
Mr. O'Brien:
My hon. Friend is entirely right. His understanding of the position is accurate. Naturally, I am glad that there is a website for people to visit; in many ways, that is progress in itself. At the same time, however, this shows the Government's lack of experience and achievement in customer service, given
30 Jun 2004 : Column 368
that the taxpayer's money—businesses' money—is being used to provide a service to the very businesses that feel let down by the Labour Government on the ground that the information is not being produced in a customer-friendly way. A recent survey showed that only 17 per cent. of businesses recognised the schemes that were available to them from the Department of Trade and Industry. Furthermore, the Secretary of State herself has said that many of the schemes are not a useful use of taxpayers' money.
I was a former FTSE 100 manufacturing industrialist and small business operator before I entered Parliament five years ago, so I understand that a certain level of regulation will always be necessary. I also know from my experience of actively doing business in more than 10 countries on the continent that some EU legislation, particularly in relation to the internal market, has been positive in working against protectionist practices on the continent.
However, speaking from the perspective of someone who has had to comply with, rather than produce, business regulations, I see two things very clearly. First, it comes as no surprise to me—although it may to Ministers, who have no direct experience at the sharp end of business—that, as the Government have increased the time businesses have to spend dealing with red tape by more than 200 per cent. since 1997, as the last week's Peninsula survey confirms, there has been a corresponding reduction in productivity growth. That growth rate is currently barely more than half of what it was between 1993 and 1997.
Secondly, if an extra £30 billion has been placed on UK businesses since 1998—as the latest British Chambers of Commerce burdens barometer has calculated—it was inevitable that UK competitiveness has plummeted from fourth place in 1997 to 15th place today, as the World Economic Forum rankings testify.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |