12 Dec 2006 : Column 1443
House of Lords
Tuesday, 12 December 2006.
The House met at half-past two: the LORD SPEAKER on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.
EU: Regulation
Viscount Falkland asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether they accept Commissioner Verheugen’s estimate that European Union regulation is costing €600 billion per annum to European Union member states’ economies.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this figure is one of a number of recent estimates of the total administrative costs of EU and national legislation, but it is not used by the Government. The Government estimate that the total administrative burden on business, charities and the voluntary sector in England derived from EU legislation is approximately £6.3 billion, or €9.2 billion, per annum. This estimate excludes the costs of EU administrative burdens on financial services, which are not available in this format.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Whatever the exactitude of the figure that has been quoted by Commissioner Verheugen, is it not curious that against the Commission’s intention to reduce the administrative burden in Europe by 25 per cent in the medium term, his concerns about competitiveness in relation to the costs of regulation have met with such hostility? Do the Government consider there to be the right balance between the views of his camp, which, bearing in mind his position, is concerned with competitiveness, and the views of those who consider rules and regulations to be a cohesive factor socially and politically in Europe?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount will recognise that the Government have worked extremely hard to ensure that Europe takes fair and proportionate regulation seriously. Indeed, we could argue that we have been at the forefront of ensuring that that is the case; but the noble Viscount is right that the balance has to be struck. We think that the balance is about right and that there are many benefits from EU regulation. Given that our economy is one of the most competitive in the world, I think those benefits are clear to all.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, is this not the follow-up to the Cecchini report, which demonstrated the cost of Europe not having swept away 25 sets of red tape to produce a single market capable of receiving all forms of business and industry? Does my noble friend
12 Dec 2006 : Column 1444
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I think we would all recognise that the European Union has brought many benefits and ensured that we have had a successful period of economic growth and prosperity in the United Kingdom. The noble Lord is exactly right to highlight that issue; but we must ensure that we get the balance of regulation right so that those benefits can continue into the future.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, what are the Government going to do about the problem identified by the Merits Committee of this House in its excellent report on secondary legislation? Even when people agree that European legislation is daft, it is almost impossible to change the secondary legislation because it requires unanimity to put it on to the agenda and to make a change.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thought that the Merits Committee report was very good and that our debate was extremely valuable. That point was well made and was echoed broadly across your Lordships’ House. Clearly, it is an issue to which we will return from time to time. However, I go back to the point that regulation brings many benefits. Our economy is prospering and is very successful. It is about getting the right balance in regulation.
Lord Dykes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for confirming that Commissioner Verheugen’s figures were putative extrapolations for the long term. The figures that the noble Lord quoted presumably exclude gold-plating by national member states of the European cost figures. Does he agree that, with the 25 per cent reduction that HMG propose in our red tape and bureaucratic costs on business, that, too, reflects on European costs indirectly? How much, for example, are some of the European Union direct costs one-off reflections of the finalisation of the complex single market stages? Does he further agree that our official estimates confirm that the cost of our membership is about £50 per head whereas the benefits in investment and other things are £300?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord is making a case for effective regulation, with which I entirely agree. We must ensure obviously that we do not have gold-plating. The Davidson report has been widely recognised as providing us with a valuable insight into the allegation that there is excessive gold-plating within the regulatory regime in the UK. I do not think that there is evidence of that, but of course we must be very wary and watchful and ensure that when those examples come forward they are dealt with properly.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend has referred to the economic benefits to the UK from the European single market and the benefits that we have had from the regulations inspired by the
12 Dec 2006 : Column 1445
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, estimates are made of the benefit to the UK economy. It is reckoned that some 3 million UK jobs are related to EU exports and that those jobs generate around £105 billion of British exports each year. There is a clear case and clear evidence that British businesses benefit greatly from our continued involvement in the EU.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, alongside gold-plating, does the Minister accept that one problem with EU regulation is that the Commission tends to maximise its opportunity to legislate within its competences rather than adopt a light touch? Given that, will he therefore assure us that when the constitution comes back on the agenda the Government will not accept an extension of competences by QMV?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I accept that the issue of competences is very important, which is why I spoke earlier about getting the balance right. The noble Lord quite properly raises that issue. But we have to understand that we incorporate EU legislation into our regulatory regime and we have been applauded for the way in which we interpret it. The system is working well. Of course, we can always look for improvement, which is why we aspire to and seek to achieve the 25 per cent figure for reducing the burdens of red tape.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, by way of underlining Commissioner Verheugen’s point, are Her Majesty's Government aware that the Swiss federal Government have recently estimated that if Switzerland were to join the European Union, it would cost her nine times more—some 5 billion Swiss francs per annum—than her present free trade and other bilateral arrangements with Brussels? Surely, that picture must be the same for EU members, including the United Kingdom.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I cannot believe that if we were to withdraw from the European Union, British business would want to go back to a system whereby some 60 million Customs clearance documents were needed every year to ensure that we could export our goods and services to the EU. Does the noble Lord really want to go back to such a system?
London: Emergency Services
2.44 pm
Lord Naseby asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether all the emergency services in London now have a radio system that operates below and above ground.
12 Dec 2006 : Column 1446
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Andrews): My Lords, the existing infrastructure enables communication above and below ground. In the event of a future emergency, before London Underground’s Project Connect system is fully operational at the end of 2007, additional cabling will be available to carry radio waves below ground. In addition, the new digital communications system, Airwave, is currently being rolled out across all emergency services and it will be fully compatible with Project Connect by 2008.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, on the surface that Answer might seem reassuring, but is it not true that Airwave is incompatible with the London Underground system and that the new system, Project Connect, will not roll out until, at the earliest, 2007? Are there not also technical problems with the train computers on the Central, Jubilee and Northern lines and does not the back-up system have a life span of only five hours, just when a crisis would reach its peak? All in all, it is going to take at least two and a half years to have a system up and working. Do not the citizens of London and our guests from overseas deserve something better than having once again to put up with the debris of Home Office incompetence?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, let me deal with those questions in turn. At the moment, Airwave is incompatible with Project Connect. As I have said, when Project Connect is completed at the end of 2007, Airwave will be extended and it will be fully compatible. If the noble Lord were to read the evidence put forward in response to the Barnes committee last week, he would find that London Underground made some strong statements about the dramatic progress that it has made in rolling out Project Connect, line by line, which is to its great credit. In addition, we will have a system in the interim whereby mobile phones have been offered to and are being used by critical command personnel in all the key emergency services. The evidence given to the committee shows how much progress has been made by the emergency services and how much more robust is the resilience of communications than on 7/7.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, on 7 July last year the City of London Police took a decision to disable part of the O2 network without consulting the commanders of other emergency services. If, as the Minister has said, some reliance is still to be placed on mobile phone technology, what steps have been taken to ensure that the network cannot be disabled unilaterally by one emergency service?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, a restriction was placed on the system on 7/7 but it is important to understand that no lives were endangered because of the communications systems in use on that day. As Andy Trotter put it the other day, the radios worked, the systems worked, and the emergency services made
12 Dec 2006 : Column 1447
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, some years ago I was involved in the reorganisation of the ambulance service—and, of course, an emergency, whether it is a national or personal one, is very often covered by the ambulance service. At that time, there was a major problem that ambulances travelling from one area to another had to keep changing frequencies to maintain radio connection. Can the Minister assure me that there is now a single national channel into which every ambulance can be tuned? Very often ambulances are redirected from one hospital to another if capacity runs out.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the basic problem on 7/7 was that the feeder cables, which run underground and permit communication with, for example, the British Transport Police and the City of London Police, were not available to the ambulance service. Since then, the ambulance service has equipped itself with two mobile vans that can put down its own cables in the future. More important, key personnel in the ambulance services have been issued with 200 mobile phones to overcome these communication problems. These will be fully rolled out by the beginning of 2008. They have been given priority within the system to address these particular problems.
Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006
2.49 pm
Lord Geddes asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether they seek to encourage loyalty and dedication in the workplace; and, if so, whether they consider that the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 promote that objective.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Truscott): Yes, my Lords, we encourage good workplace relations that will build loyalty and dedication. In outlawing unjustified age discrimination in employment and vocational training, the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations will help employers to attract, motivate and retain loyal and dedicated staff and make the best use of the skills and experience available to them.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I think I thank the Minister for that reply. Do not the regulations make it at the very least a deterrent in practice for an employer to reward long, loyal service with such benefits as sabbaticals, incremental holidays or even
12 Dec 2006 : Column 1448
Lord Truscott: No, my Lords, I do not believe that to be the case. Fundamentally, the regulations outlaw age discrimination in employment and vocational training unless objectively justified. When it comes to benefits—for example, insured benefits—the regulations are specifically framed in such a way as not to discriminate against various groups, such as women. Where there is a limit of, for example, five years’ service, beyond which it would be unfair to discriminate against certain groups such as women who may take career breaks, employers have an exemption up to that point; if they wish to retain staff by offering other benefits and can objectively justify those benefits, they can offer them.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister accept that this House is probably the best example of why age discrimination should not apply?
Lord Truscott: Yes, my Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. The part of the regulations that specifically refers to his point says:
“Our aim over time is to move to a position where there is no compulsory retirement unless it can be objectively justified by individual employers”.
Many of us would support that principle.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, I want to reflect on the experience of many elderly people in the Chamber. When I started work in the steel industry, blue-collar workers did not have a pension scheme but white-collar workers did. When I started, people well into their 70s were working in the steel industry. As a young man, I thought it was awful. Under public ownership, we—mainly on these Benches, I suggest—achieved our goal of retirement at 65, sick pay, holiday pay and reduced hours of work. With the proposed steps, are we making progress?
Lord Truscott: My Lords, we are absolutely making progress—that is what the regulations are about. People can now work up to the age of 65, beyond which point employers will have a duty to consult them before making them redundant. People’s pensions and entitlements have also improved over the years.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, given the almost complete lack of publicity given to these regulations by the Government, is the Minister satisfied that anything like enough of our citizens in employment have any idea of their rights to ask for extended working?
Lord Truscott: My Lords, employers have been told that they must prepare for these regulations; it will be their duty to ensure that their schemes meet the requirements. It is the duty of employers, the Government and all of us to ensure that people are aware of their rights.
12 Dec 2006 : Column 1449
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, clearly the wording of these matters is very important. Where justification is important, can the Minister say when something is justified and when it is not? If he cannot tell me now, will he write to me?
Lord Truscott: My Lords, it is up to the employer to objectively justify entitlements. They can outline the position of objective justification, but it is up to them to justify the benefits as being in keeping with the regulations. As long as the benefits match the statutory schemes and benefits, they are within the regulations. If the benefits go beyond the regulations, the employers might have to objectively justify those entitlements and show that they are not discriminatory.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, some of us might have difficulty understanding these complicated rules and regulations—I certainly do. Does the Minister think that the workforce will understand them?
Lord Truscott: My Lords, I would hope so. That is why we have organisations such as trade unions, which do a very good job for their members, and I hope they continue to do so.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, is it not a fact that, every time new anti-discriminatory legislation has been introduced, we have had the same queries and criticisms of its effect, which have proved unfounded? Has not justification featured in previous legislation and been clearly defined in the courts and tribunals?
Lord Truscott: Yes, my Lords. I do not wish to open any old wounds, but did we not have the same discussion about the minimum wage when it was introduced? A lot of people criticised it then. On the legal point, the European Court of Justice will be considering the whole issue. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry supports the referral to the ECJ, which is proposed by Age Concern, and that will clarify the law.
Lord De Mauley: My Lords, we on these Benches support the elimination of discrimination on any grounds other than merit, but the objective justification to which the Minister has referred is extremely complicated, as he himself allowed us to understand. It is so rigorous that an unintended consequence of these regulations is that employers are experiencing dramatic increases in costs, such as insured benefits, which are likely to reduce employment opportunities after 65 as smaller employers are unable to afford the increased costs. Why did the Government not foresee and plan for this, and what will they do to resolve these problems?
Lord Truscott: My Lords, there has been an awful lot of consultation and guidance on these issues. The regulations and guidance were consulted on, and the
12 Dec 2006 : Column 1450
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |