Ian
Lucas: I thank Committee members for the interesting, but
slightly wider ranging than anticipated, debate. I will try to respond
to the queries raised; if I do not respond orally, I will certainly
come back to hon. Members in writing, but I will try to make progress
today.
Gold-plating,
to which a number of hon. Members referred, is always a concern and is
referred to repeatedly in meetings that I have with business and by
hon. Members when we discuss these issues. It is important that we take
steps for a reason, have rational justifications and impose no
unnecessary burdens on business. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare
gave the example of the inclusion of information provision by non-EEA
providers. I understand his point, but in those circumstances the
Government have taken into account the interests of consumers as well
as business. Bearing in mind that consumers have an interest in
receiving information relating to businesses and services that they
purchase, it is important for them that non-EEA providers provide a
similar level of information to that provided by EEA providers. On
balance, the Government decided that that was an important step to
take, so the circumstances in that case led to our
decision.
John
Penrose: I thank the Minister for laying out the
qualitative reasoning that he and his Department went
through. He used an important phrase in his
explanation—“on balance”. Have the Government
calculated how the scales tip on that balance by doing an impact
assessment of the pluses and minuses of the additional compliance costs
and red tape required versus the qualitative benefits that he is laying
out? Can he make the quantification of that qualified reasoning
available to the Committee?
Ian
Lucas: I am afraid that I do not have that information to
hand, but I will look into the matter. If a quantitative decision has
been made, based on sums as I call them, I will certainly pass the
information on to Committee members.
The hon.
Gentleman’s second topic was the point of single contact. It is
a great opportunity for business but it is correct, right and proper
that we ensure that it operates to the advantage of UK businesses. Two
areas raised were language, to which I think the hon. Member for
Solihull referred, and access through e-portals.
On language,
of course some EU member states have languages that are more widely
used than others. Naturally those member states will use their own
languages, but it is in their business interests in many cases to use
English, as it is widely used by business not only across Europe, but
across the world. Some member states, including the Netherlands, I
think, have decided to use the English language in portals that they
are developing. It is difficult to prescribe one language for use by
all EU member states. Our relations with other member states—I
will not mention any by name—might make that more difficult. We
are very keen to stress at all stages the business interest in
developing the English language for use throughout the EU and through
portals. Although we cannot prescribe such an approach, in all our
communication and engagement with the EU, we stress strongly the
importance of developing access through portals through the medium of
English and the business opportunities that that provides not only for
British businesses, but for businesses across the
EU.
John
Penrose: The Minister is being very patient. I accept the
practical difficulties in mandating translation into certain languages,
as he is explaining. Does he accept that, in spite of those
difficulties, a potential obstacle remains that protectionist countries
can hide behind? If countries have a language that is not spoken
widely, but choose not to take the Dutch approach of translating their
portal into widely spoken languages such as English, it will be
difficult to export successfully to those countries, particularly for
small business, because of the large language barrier at the early
stage of the point of single
contact.
Ian
Lucas: I do not want to attribute malign motives in
hypothetical cases. If a problem emerges for business as the services
directive kicks in and the markets develop, I will be concerned and
address the matter. There is a danger, but we must monitor the
situation and deal with it when specific examples
arise. On
the e-concerns—if I may call them that—points of single
contact must justify requirements for e-signatures. Although few UK
businesses use e-signatures, they are available. The EU is requiring
all member states to prepare a trusted list of electronic signature
providers, so that qualified electronic signatures in each country
are readily recognised and accepted elsewhere. It is open to businesses
to chose a non-electronic route if they consider the cost of investing
in an e-signature to be too great. This area will develop. Online
business has developed rapidly in recent years. As the development of
the services directive continues and as points of single contact begin
to operate next year, we must monitor this area closely and emphasise
the benefits that more e-business will
bring. We
have touched on mutual evaluation. We are a major proponent of the
benefits of the services directive. I well remember reading learned
articles in the Law Society Gazette about the merits of the
services directive and how it should be taken forward many years ago,
before I first came to this place. We want to take forward the
directive and to ensure that there is strong mutual evaluation. If
matters are resisted by individual member states, professions or
businesses in the EU, we will want to put pressure on them to ensure
that the services directive operates
satisfactorily.
Lorely
Burt: What will be the process of mutual evaluation? Will
one country be able to pick another that it wishes to evaluate, or will
that be determined arbitrarily by an EU committee? Taking up the point
made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, if there is a
country that we think is evading its responsibility, will it be
appropriate for Great Britain to conduct a mutual evaluation with that
country to satisfy ourselves that it is complying with the
legislation?
Ian
Lucas: The appropriate course of action in the EU is to
deal with such issues collectively, usually through the Commission. To
take the hon. Lady’s example, if an individual state misbehaves,
it will be subject to discussions by member states in the Commission,
and steps will be taken to address the issue through existing
structures. I am advised that cluster groups of member states will work
with the Commission in the way that I have described. A mutual approach
is stronger than one that is taken by individual countries in the
EU.
On the
promotion of the point of single contact, the UK is not only a strong
supporter of the development of the services directive, but a strong
proponent of the point of single contact, both in the UK and across the
EU. We are keen that that is developed in the months ahead. We are
looking towards the full implementation of the directive this December.
Certain member states are progressing more quickly than others, but the
directive is in our best interests in the longer term, and we wish
progress to be made in all member states, so that the benefits to our
businesses can be
achieved. My
hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East made a point about
the impact on the
delivery of particular services in the UK, especially those provided by
public authorities. It is absolutely right that, when local authorities
provide services, they should make assessments on the basis of their
role in the local community and that the democratic decision-making
process of the local authority takes into account the nature and social
importance of the services that they provide. Ultimately, that is a
matter for the local authority, but local authorities should certainly
examine the social aspect of the services that they
provide. There
are limitations to the types of services to which the service directive
refers—for example, as I said earlier, health care is excluded.
Only certain types of services fall within the remit governed by the
directive. Democratic accountability is important, and individuals who
make decisions must be accountable to the community that they
represent.
Mr.
Purchase: My hon. Friend will know that local authorities
are able to decide on the best tender by reference to factors other
than the lowest price. Does he concede that, if that changes, a serious
problem may arise as companies from abroad gain a bigger foothold?
Local tensions may increase if people believe that jobs that should go
to their own community leak to the continent. In economic terms, I
understand the point perfectly, but in terms of democratic deficit and
holding communities together, I hope that he will concede that it is an
important point that he will look at
again.
Ian
Lucas: It is an important point, but at this juncture, as
my hon. Friend indicated, it is a hypothetical one that would arise
only if the law was to change. I understand his point, but the present
law allows for a considered decision to be made by local authorities.
It is important that those decisions are made by the local authorities.
Furthermore, in those circumstances, it would be unhealthy if the
discretion that lay with local authorities was removed. It would also
be helpful if those individuals who elect local authorities make the
right decisions when they elect them. Ultimately, that is a matter for
those individuals and that is why we have a democratic
process.
I have tried
to deal with the queries. If I have not dealt with an hon.
Member’s query, I will write to him or her individually, having
considered today’s very positive debate. I thank hon. Members
for their time and consideration, and I commend the regulations to the
Committee. Question
put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Provision of Services
Regulations 2009.
11.10
am Committee
rose.
| 
