| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Noble Lords have just heard that each department will publish detailed information later this year on both the administrative costs of complying with government regulation, and their plans for reducing these costs and other regulatory burdens. The Government will set stretching but achievable targets for reducing each department’s administrative costs over time. To put such an amendment in the Bill would be too prescriptive, giving no regard to important protection the regulation may exist to provide. It would not take account of what the Government are already delivering on measurement of administrative costs on the regulated, an approach wholeheartedly supported by the business community:
- “We are
encouraged that the effort to plan and then implement reductions in
administrative burdens is already underway, through a nationwide survey
to establish how much time and money businesses must expend to
demonstrate compliance, and to identify which regulations impose the
greatest burdens”.
While it seems a sensible amendment on a prima facie basis, it would cause uncertainty within the regulatory environment. This Government have for the first time completed an exercise to identify and measure the administrative costs of government regulations on business, charities and voluntary organisations. We will set meaningful targets for reducing those costs, and recognise that everything on the statute book, whether originating from this or other administrative legislative output, has been measured in terms of time and cost. Each government department has identified its existing stock of regulations through the administrative burdens reductions exercise, evidence that will indicate where the costs are, so that they can then take action to reduce them.
In summary, I welcome the noble Lord’s intent with this amendment, but do not agree that it is an effective way of achieving the right outcome. I invite him to withdraw it.
10 July 2006 : Column 538
7.15 pm
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The Minister has given a long and interesting reply. My noble friend was asking a simple question: will the Government look at individual regulations to see whether they have worked? In other words, he is asking for post-legislative scrutiny. If it has not worked, my noble friend suggests that that regulation is no good and should be withdrawn. It is a fairly simple question. The amendment may be the wrong way to ask it—I see that—but do the Government mean to look at regulations, see whether they have operated as they expected and report on them?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: To start with, I do not think that is what the amendment asks. I understand the thrust of what was asked when the amendment was moved. The approach being taken is a continual review of regulation. When a regulation has been introduced with an impact assessment, part of the ongoing departmental process will be to keep burdens, costs and regulation under review.
Lord Howard of Rising: I thank the Minister for his thoughtful and constructive approach. I shall reflect on it between now and Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Wilcox moved Amendment No. 33:
- (1) Where an
order made under section 1 has as its purpose the reduction (as opposed
to the removal) of any burden, or overall burdens, the Minister of the
Crown must consider whether a total exemption for small businesses from
a such burden or burdens is appropriate.
- (2) If the Minister does not consider
such exemption appropriate, he must submit a report to Parliament at
the same time as the draft order is laid before Parliament explaining
the reasons why he has come to this conclusion.
- (3) For the purpose of this section
“small businesses” refers to businesses that fall within
the criteria of a small group as set out in section 249(3) of the
Companies Act 1985 (c. 6) (qualification of group as small or
medium-sized).”
The noble Baroness said: Small businesses are vital to the UK economy. There are about 3.8 million in the UK, of which 1.6 million are sole traders. They account for 99 per cent of UK firms, generate more than half the total UK turnover and employ 56 per cent of the private sector workforce. Regulations can have a disproportionately large impact on small businesses because they usually do not employ a regulatory specialist and the costs of, for example, employment regulation are absorbed across fewer employees.
The National Audit Office report goes on to say that,
- “Departments must
therefore pay particular attention to the potential impact of their
proposed regulations on small businesses”.
10 July 2006 : Column 539
As far as I am aware, when preparing its regulatory impact assessments, current practice is for the relevant department to consult the small business section of the DTI, to get its agreement on its impact assessment on small businesses. The National Audit Office report of March 2005, on page 21, said that, in four cases out of eight in the sample, the small business section had not been given enough time to produce a considered response. Can Minister confirm whether this unsatisfactory state of affairs has been rectified?
The report went on to cite an example of where small businesses have not been properly considered. The Department of Health seemed to have been a major offender:
- “The SBS told
us that the Department of Health did not enter into negotiation and
asked the SBS not to provide comments for the RIA for the National Care
Standards Commission Fees and Frequencies of Inspection
2003-04”.
So, there we have it—clear evidence from an independent source that small businesses can and will get overlooked. We need to take the opportunity that this Bill presents to put something in concrete that will reassure the small business community that they will not get overlooked. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharples: I support my noble friend. Some 28 years ago the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, among others, and I spoke of the problems of small business—they had many. What has changed? Burdens on small businesses have increased substantially since then, especially the paperwork, which, most unfairly, requires hours of work. I hope the Government will ease the many burdens imposed on small businesses by exempting them from many of these proposed regulations.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: While the tabling of this new clause indicates that the Opposition are as eager as we are to help small businesses, the amendment is not required therefore the Government cannot support it.
One of the main policy objectives at the heart of this Bill is that orders made under the power in Clause 1 will help to reduce regulatory burdens, including burdens on small businesses. The proposed new clause is therefore unnecessary. All regulatory proposals must be accompanied by a RIA, and major proposals are scrutinised and require approval by the Panel for Regulatory Accountability (PRA).
10 July 2006 : Column 540
The purpose of RIAs and PRA scrutiny is to ensure that the costs and consequences of regulatory proposals are reasonable and proportionate to the benefits. Exemptions for any group or sector are considered on a case-by-case basis, with Ministers making transparent their decision through the RIA/PRA process, as we have just discussed.
One of the key principles of better regulation is light-touch implementation of policy proposals. This amendment runs counter to that principle, as did the previous one. RIAs already consider the impact of any regulation on small and medium enterprises and are subject to scrutiny by officials within the Better Regulation Executive. The chair of the Small Business Council, Julie Kenny, is invited to attend meetings of the PRA. That seeks to ensure that small businesses have a voice on the committee and that the regulatory proposals scrutinised take full account of the impact on small businesses.
The Government are already reducing regulatory burdens on small businesses. For example, we are exempting nearly 900,000 companies from audit requirements on their accounts as a result of raising the annual turnover threshold from £1 million to£5.6 million, saving companies at least £94 million a year. We have introduced regulation updates: a one-page “see at a glance” look at new regulations which enable an SME to decide whether a new regulation will affect it, without having to wade through a lengthy document, saving time and money. We have introduced a 12-week minimum implementation period for new regulation, giving implementation guidelines to SMEs, to enable them to prepare for new regulation at least three months before it is due to come into effect.
The DTI simplification plan alone identifies how it will reduce the burdens on businesses by more than £1 billion over the lifetime of its five-year programme.
The Company Law Reform Bill, the heart of which is deregulation, will deliver savings to businesses of some £250 million a year. That includes an estimated annual saving of £100 million for small businesses.
The requirement in the Bill for consultation on any proposed order will also allow those affected by any proposals to have an opportunity to put their case to the Government. The Government will take these views into account before a draft order and explanatory document are laid before Parliament. The explanatory document must give details of the consultation, representations received and any changes made as a result of those representations. Those representations from small and medium enterprises, as with other representations, will of course be reflected in this explanatory document. There is a clear overlap between what this amendment would require and what is already required by the Bill in the explanatory document.
This Bill is about reducing and removing unnecessary burdens, not increasing them, and will make the procedure more onerous, diverting valuable resources away from actually delivering the necessary reductions in red tape that businesses, the public and the voluntary sector are crying out for.
Small businesses are
the backbone of the UK economy—we share a view on that. There
are a record number of small businesses, nearly twice as many as
10 July 2006 : Column 541
The Bill has widespread support, including from the Federation of Small Businesses and the Small Business Council. It is difficult to see how the proposed new clause would add anything to the mechanisms this Government have already put in place to support small businesses. Small business, as defined, is in danger of putting a straitjacket on the approach which the Government would take on this, because the definition of “small or medium-sized enterprise” may differ according to the requirement of the particular regulation. A Companies Act definition may be appropriate if one is considering exemption from audit or from some other more detailed requirement of financial reporting. It is not necessarily always the key test for other requirements. To put such a straitjacket in the Bill is unhelpful. On the basis of the evidence provided, I therefore urge the noble Baroness opposite to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Wilcox: I have listened to the Minister's reply. I am very pleased that the small business organisations he referred to seem to have confidence in the Government’s approach. I do not have that much confidence. I have run a small business and know how often these things sound wonderful on paper but can take an awful lot of time to do. Anything that goes near a government department always seems to take a lot more time.
I am delighted that the Minister has now joined us and has given the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, a slight breather as he seemed to be batting totally on his own. It is very nice to have him here. He will know that many of the previous amendments centred on the fact that we want provisions in statutory form.
We, like the Government, are very keen that this Bill is an improvement on the 2001 Act. That sounded good, too, in its time, but we are worried that there is not enough force behind it. If the Minister is staying with us, he will see more amendments like this where we are trying to get more robust and tougher legislation to call departments to account and to get them to Parliament—so that it forces their hands.
I will read very carefully the Minister’s response to this amendment. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Given the nature of the following business, I suggest that the Committee stage begins again not before 8.30 pm. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
10 July 2006 : Column 542
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |