John Redwood

|

Government Regulation

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): I beg to move,

That this House draws attention to the escalating cost of regulation and the increasing number of cases where regulation either achieves nothing or does positive harm to those being regulated; urges the Government to produce a deregulation Bill which goes beyond exhortation to better regulation by repealing unnecessary and burdensome laws and rules; encourages the Government to table a programme for the UK Presidency of lesser and better regulation for the EU as a whole; and asks the Government to bring forward proposals which free professionals in hospitals and schools, which cut the costs of controls over elected local government, and allow business in the UK to compete more successfully against Asian and American competitors.

In moving this motion, I am a little bemused by the Government's response. I crafted the wording of the motion myself—it is a veritable pussycat of a motion. My right hon. and hon. Friends have been too generous. They have not said, "Are you losing your touch? Where is the tiger in the tail?" It was deliberately couched in words that I thought Her Majesty's Government would welcome. I have heard many fine words from the Prime Minister; even more remarkably, I have heard sometimes similar fine words from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It appears that, at times, this is one issue on which they agree: they now wish to run a deregulatory Government. In this motion, I give them a little encouragement, assistance and advice. Its wording is surely unexceptionable—if they are as truly committed as some of the readers of their words might expect.

Our motion

"urges the Government to produce a deregulation Bill which goes beyond exhortation . . . by repealing unnecessary and burdensome laws".

Do I take it from the Government's wish to strike our motion from the Order Paper when proceedings conclude that they no longer wish to have a deregulation Bill—there was one in the Gracious Speech—or do they wish to have a deregulation Bill with nothing in it? Are we to have yet more words and no action? Are we to have deregulation in the title, but nothing actually deregulated? That is very new Labour—very fashionable circa 1997—but perhaps not in the spirit of the modern world.

In the motion, I encourage the Government

"to table a programme for the UK Presidency of lesser and better regulation for the EU as a whole".

Surely they can assent to that very modest proposition. I wanted to include a list of all the regulations that we want repealed—[Hon. Members: "Go on."] Well, we might do that later, if time permits. I thought, in order to be in sympathy with the Government, "Better the sinner who repents." I thought that they had realised that they passed too much regulation in their first eight years, and that they might agree to table a paper for the EU presidency that contains positive proposals for deregulating the EU. But no, I see from the stony faces of the Government Front Benchers that there is no wish to table a paper setting out matters that can be repealed during the British Government's presidency.

My motion then suggests that the Government

"bring forward proposals which free professionals in hospitals and schools".

I accept that such an idea would probably put me on the ultra-Blairite wing of the rather ragged Labour coalition, but surely it is just within the spectrum. We know that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are locking horns on this issue. The Prime Minister makes the occasional speech, or allows the occasional briefing to be made to the press, saying that our professionals in schools and hospitals need more freedoms, hence the ideas behind the early versions of foundation hospitals and special schools. We know that the Chancellor has been sandbagging those and pulling back, but I hope that the Treasury Front Bench Members—particularly the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who may be on the Blairite wing—may be able to tell us tonight that they need to go further in freeing the professionals who are damaged by the red tape, interference and bossiness that have characterised the eight years of this long Labour Government.

Ed Balls (Normanton) (Lab): Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the task of any Government is to strike the right balance between regulation on the one hand and minimum standards on the other? Over the eight years to which he referred, does he agree that the introduction of the national minimum wage was the sort of regulation that he should have supported when he was a Minister in the last Conservative Government?

Mr. Redwood: Of course Governments have to find a balance between necessary regulation and leaving individuals and businesses free enough to go about their daily lives and compete. Our charge against the Government tonight is that that is precisely the balance that the Government have struck incorrectly.

Ed Ballsrose—

Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman has had his chance, and I am merely explaining our position, which is that the Government have regulated too much. That includes too much intrusive labour market regulation. As the hon. Gentleman tempts me on labour market regulation—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman really must contain himself. If he is lucky in catching Madam Deputy Speaker's eye later, he will be able to tell the whole House in a proper way exactly what he thinks about labour regulation.

The Conservative party believes that there is now too much labour regulation in total. We believe that it is vital for the Government to try to hang on to the opt-out from the working time directive. We are angry that the Government Front Bench Members say that they want to keep the opt-out, while Members of the European Parliament elected on the Labour ticket are busily trying to undermine them and do the opposite. Perhaps if the hon. Member for Normanton (Ed Balls) makes a speech, he will explain that huge contradiction that lies at the heart of the different elected levels of Labour.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury) (Con): Does my right hon. Friend recall that, despite being asked, former Labour Front Benchers not only refused to condemn the Labour MEPs who repeatedly voted to scrap our valuable opt-out of the working time directive, but urged Conservative MEPs to continue to carry on voting as they were to preserve this country's opt-out? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government are in a great muddle over that?

Mr. Redwood: That was an excellent intervention, which shows the hon. Member for Normanton how he should aspire to do better in future. My hon. Friend has put his finger on the crucial point that applies in this interesting matter.

We have before us tonight a lame Government counter-motion, which is so self-congratulatory and complacent that, even though it comes from this Government, it really beggars belief. On the eve of our presidency attempt to deregulate the European Union and before the Government launch their deregulation Bill, we are invited in the Government motion to praise them for all the wonderful things that they have done in producing better regulation. As I hope to demonstrate to the House, the contrary is the case.

The Government have greatly burdened British business. Instead of deregulating, they have, according to the British Chambers of Commerce, now added a cumulative £40,000 million of extra costs on British business. Before Labour Members say that there were many fine things in all that regulation, let me make it clear that there is one thing worse than having an unregulated job—and that is having no job at all. The danger of what the Government are doing by piling cost on cost, rule on rule, is that it is undermining our competitiveness in the world economy. The Chancellor constantly tells us that China is a great competitive threat, yet he continues to burden our businesses.

                      
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hutton)rose—

Mr. Redwood: Before the right hon. Gentleman intervenes, he may like to remind the House that 1 million manufacturing jobs have gone since the Chancellor of the Exchequer took over in 1997. Part of the reason for that is the huge burden of regulation.

Mr. Hutton: The right hon. Gentleman talks about people having no jobs. Will he tell the House how many more new jobs there are in the UK economy since the Labour Government took office? Is it not 2 million, of which the vast majority are in the private sector?

Mr. Redwood: A very large number of jobs, especially in the public sector, have been created, but the right hon. Gentleman is wrong to ignore the 1 million manufacturing jobs that have gone. That is very serious. We have had several manufacturing recessions—not overall recessions—during the Government's term of office so far, and Treasury Ministers are quite wrong to ignore the stresses and strains in manufacturing, as they have ignored them for so long in government. It is particularly rich for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who spent so many days and hours in opposition over the long years, to make claims about the statistics.
 
Figures from the Library show that, from time to time, manufacturing jobs were lost under the last Conservative Government, and the Chancellor always led the public to believe that it would be very different under Labour. What he did not explain was that, in respect of job losses, the difference would be consistent and on a huge scale.

Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): Only last week, a manufacturing firm, Pennine Fibres, in Denholme—a village that is certainly not in the most affluent part of the area—closed down, costing another 80 jobs in my constituency. Part of the reason why that happens is that there is so little expertise among Government Front Benchers at running a business. They simply do not understand the problems that they are causing.

Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I hope that he will convey the Opposition's sadness about those job losses to those who have suffered them. It is a very good example of a more general problem. As businesses have made the Opposition aware, such problems are the result of Government actions. Today, for example—

Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)rose—

Mr. Redwood: I want to make a little progress, but I am a generous man.

Andrew Miller: Before the right hon. Gentleman moves on from manufacturing jobs, may I tell him that I, unlike him, represent a manufacturing constituency? It currently has 1.4 per cent. unemployment. I accept that many manufacturing jobs have been lost, but that has been the pattern throughout the western world. What regulations—not European regulations, but regulations specific to the Government—would he scrap to make us more competitive with countries such as China and India where many of the jobs have gone? What changes would he make?

Mr. Redwood: I hope to come on and give some advice to the Government—
Andrew Miller: The right hon. Gentleman is frightened to respond now.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman wrongly claims from a sedentary position that I am frightened. I am not at all frightened, as I am sure the House knows, and I am about to come on to the regulations that we believe should be repealed in forthcoming Government legislation to make us considerably more competitive.

Before I finish this general point, it is worth reminding the House that we read from an extensive brief in one of the leading newspapers today that the Government now believe that the total cost of regulation each year is £150 billion. Indeed, the very arresting headline said that regulation now costs everyone more than the Inland Revenue charged us all in income tax. It is a terrifying figure. Those who saw the article will know that it continued by pointing out that a team of about 80 officials are working away over a nine-month period to try to come up with an entirely accurate costing. [Interruption.] I am asked whether the figure is true. I cannot verify it completely tonight, having only seen it this morning, but it seems a pretty good ball park figure and it feels plausible, given that we know that the cumulative total of extra regulation under the Government is £40 billion. They inherited some of that, but made it worse through over-implementation.

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): Perhaps I can throw a little light on just a fraction of that burden. Is my right hon. Friend aware that Hampshire county council, which has consistently been rated excellent without the necessity for all these targets, has supplied me with a list of more than 22 A4 pages? It lists 400 indices, targets and standards of performance on which it is obliged to report. It uses up resources equivalent to the employment of between six and eight teachers in simply reporting back to the Government on the extent to which the council has managed to meet the overwhelming burden of targets imposed on it.

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. It is one of many examples that Members could provide, and some will, about the huge impact of such regulation and how it diverts people and money from things that are worth doing—in my hon. Friend's case, the good example of providing more teachers—to things that are not worth doing, which amounts to bossiness gone mad.

The Government churn out more than 4,100 new regulations a year, or 16 for every working day. Our position in the world competitiveness league, as measured by the World Economic Forum, has fallen from fourth, when the Government took office, to 11th today. They should be extremely worried by that.

What could we do? Several straightforward steps could be taken, by a deregulation Bill, which we in this House have been promised, and through the mechanism of the EU presidency, with the UK guiding the agenda with our partners in Europe on the regulations that fall from the Brussels printing presses. After all, the Government are undoubtedly good at one or two things—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Well, Labour Members will love this. One of those things is making ever more rules and regulations that become the bane of our lives. Some of those regulations miss their target, some hit the wrong targets and some, such as ID cards, are regulations in search of a target, as the Government try to find something that the cards could achieve, having decided that they must tie us up in knots with that legislation.

There are the regulations that try to protect us when we do not need protecting. The vitamin supplements and food additive regulations are the combined effort of Brussels and this Government. As always under this Government, we have gold-plated those regulations and steamed ahead to implement them this summer. They were of course too sensible to implement them just before the general election. Even this Government realise that the regulations are mightily unpopular, but they will be implemented this summer. That will mean price increases and bans for popular products, affecting millions of people who would like to continue to be able to buy them.

We read, in briefings from mysterious sources, that the Prime Minister himself is aware of how foolish and unpopular the regulations will be. I praise Carole Caplin, because I understand that she is a sage adviser on that issue and I wish her every success in strengthening the Prime Minister's arm against those regulations. Will the Government tonight promise that they will take counter-proposals to Brussels on that issue? Will they try to sort it out before it grinds its way through the courts? Will they accept tonight that the regulation is unnecessary and that they should use some political capital to get it rescinded in Brussels?

Then there are those regulations that seem to have no purpose at all. For example, identity cards started life as a means of stopping illegal immigrants entering the country. When we pointed out that people need a passport to enter the country and that there was no need to require a different document that was available only to those established as British citizens anyway, the Government backed away from that proposal and said that ID cards could be used for crime busting. The quality of criminals is probably higher than the Government reckon, so I suspect that few burglars will take their ID cards with them and drop them on the doormat before they leave the house with the goodies. Short of that happening, it is difficult to see how ID cards would have a huge impact on catching criminals who break into our homes or do damage to our cars. Now, we are told that ID cards will combat identity theft. Apparently, that is a growing and serious crime and the Government think that ID cards will combat it when national insurance numbers, passports and other means of identification, including driving licences, cannot. Next week, ID cards may be an essential aid for anyone who has to go to a computer dating agency to sort out their social life.

Then we have the regulations that are over the top and silly, out of all proportion to the possible risk. For example, we have the risk assessments that are now demanded by some councils before people can undertake sponsored walks. I read about a case a few weeks ago when the council said that the person organising the sponsored walk had to walk the circuit three days in advance and ensure that there were no dangerous rabbit holes. If there were, the organiser had to ensure that everybody on the walk was fully briefed about them before going on the walk. However, nobody told the rabbits, any of which could have dug a dangerous hole between the reconnaissance and the briefing. I wondered whether the briefing would cover that crucial point. Cannot the Government see that that is ridiculous and put something in the Bill about proportionality to try to calm down such activity?

                      
David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): I am tempted to suggest that we follow the American example and have a Warren commission to investigate the matter. [Laughter.] On a serious point, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair to local government, which often responds to the pressures and constraints of its insurers. It is not necessarily the local authorities that pursue such issues to the point of lunacy.

Mr. Redwood: I think that local authorities are pursuing the Government's agenda, and they must send a new signal. Another example is the regulation of school trips. I printed off the website the forms that have to be filled in before children can be taken on a school trip.

Mr. Anthony Steen (Totnes) (Con): Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Health and Safety Executive now has some 9,000 officials? They have recommended that the hairbrushes should be withdrawn from the Members' Cloakroom on the basis that we may catch nits or AIDS. They are also of the view that Members should not use kettles in case we burn ourselves, so we all now have hot-water systems. Is my right hon. Friend aware of these ridiculous attitudes, which mean that the HSE affects us even here?

Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for a powerful intervention. However, if I were to assert that there were nits in the House, it might be deemed unparliamentary language, so I shall not go any further down that route.

Nine different forms have to be filled in before a teacher can take children on a school trip and, if a swimming pool visit is involved, another two are added. I shall not read the forms out, but they are bizarre in their detail and complexity. Of course, teachers should need permission and should behave reasonably—I am sure that they do—but they should not need to fill in nine forms. The regulations are becoming an impediment to organising trips and it is easier not to bother.

Then there are regulations that achieve the opposite of what was intended. The common fisheries policy is perhaps the best and biggest example of that. In the name of conservation, fishermen are told that they have to hurl dead fish back into the sea if they catch the wrong kind of fish. That means that they have to go and catch more of the right kind of fish for people to eat, instead of being able to sell the dead fish and avoid having to rape the seabed further. That is madness. The Government must recognise that and should use some of their influence in Brussels to achieve a fundamental revision of the CFP or repatriate the policy, as the Conservatives would wish to do.

Then there are regulations that miss the target. The Government's policy for tackling road accidents and deaths—an important issue—has been based almost entirely on the control of speed. They have not been deterred by the fact that fewer than one in 10 of all accidents on the road has speed as a prime or important cause and they have ignored all the evidence that shows that many dangerous accidents occur well below the maximum speed limit at junctions with a conflict of traffic and different types of users on the same road space. Because the policy rested on speed cameras, we had a reversal in the trend for several years and road deaths started going up again. I am pleased that figures for the most recent year show an overall fall, but in the area most dependent on speed cameras—north Wales—the trend in deaths and serious accidents has continued to rise. The Government should consider that and accept that their single over-regulated policy is not working, because it does not tackle the causes of the problem.

Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con): Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have a complete imbalance in regulation? On the one hand we have some 5,000 deaths a year on the roads—[Hon. Members: "Three and a half thousand."] I meant approximately. On the other hand, the use of certain mineral and vitamin supplements will be banned even though there are few, if any, recorded cases of anybody dying from their use.

Mr. Redwood: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support, especially on the vitamin supplements, because there is no problem with them for the regulation to solve.

Then there are the regulations that seek to make people's lives difficult by being unnecessarily complicated. For example, there are the regulations for people seeking to obtain new pub licences to sell alcohol. The paperwork is enormous. I do not have time to read out any highlights, but there are pages and pages of information. I have identified 24 forms and guidance notes that people will have to wade through to see which is appropriate for their case; everything from feedback forms to premises licences, variation licences, personal licences, club premises certificates, provisional statements and so forth. Anyone trying to run a pub or club now has to wade through 24 items—probably with a lawyer helping them—simply to stay in business. The Government must be extremely worried that so many pubs, clubs and other businesses have not yet applied for premises licences, and that so many people in the trade have not yet applied for personal licences. The deadline is close and there could be chaos in due course, because the Government have made people's lives impossible and caused them so much difficulty.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Does my right hon. Friend recall that nine months ago the Department for Trade and Industry, the arch-regulator of Departments, had to pulp, at a cost to the taxpayer of about £203,000, the dispute resolution procedure for employers and employees? The procedure made things even more complicated by pretending that it was a one, two, three-step process; in fact there were 13 steps. Even the TUC criticised the regulations, saying that they were too complicated and more likely to cause confusion than to solve workplace problems, and the Federation of Small Businesses condemned them as a potential minefield for small firms. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is another example of over-complication, missing the target and Government irresponsibility?

Mr. Redwood: It is another fine example and I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West) (Con): Will my right hon. Friend join me in asking Ministers to tell us whether they have made a survey of the working men's and other voluntary clubs and sports clubs that have been caught up in drink licensing? Amateurs who run such clubs often have to hire the skills of professionals and pay for them, as well as paying more in fees.

Mr. Redwood: That is an extremely good question and I hope that the Minister will respond.

Much of the regulation of the public sector distorts professional judgments and does damage to the public services that people are trying to run. The education and health targets substitute political priorities for the things that teachers and doctors would do based on their professional judgment. In hospitals, we need to trust the professionals to assess clinical risks and to make their own decisions within the resources available. In the education sector, we need to trust teachers rather more. Instead, a whole army of targets pours forth from Whitehall; there are endless advice notes and guidance notes making it extremely difficult for people to do the job on the ground.

Local government is tied up in knots by the Government. They sometimes say that they like the idea of more devolved local decision making but in practice they take power to the centre. We should like to see the end of the best value and comprehensive performance regimes, which would save £1,000 million in unnecessary overheads and free our councils to get on with the job and answer more directly to their electors. That should be an important part of any deregulation Bill that comes before the House, and if by any chance it has escaped the Government's attention, I trust that we shall be able to move an amendment to give them the chance to include such provisions, which would be much welcomed by Labour as well as by Conservative and Lib Dem councillors.

In the case of village halls, many people who would like to work for community purposes find it too daunting due to the 18 health and safety regulations and the new difficulties over drinks licences. One modest proposal from the village hall movement is to double the number of temporary entertainment events notices that they can hold, to allow alcohol to be used on village hall premises. Without some flexibility and common sense from the Government, village halls face a bleak future. Surely, the Government can give us some hope tonight about some sensible deregulation to help important community facilities run by volunteers.

Finally, in my deregulation list, we come to the Financial Services Authority and City regulation. We learn that the Prime Minister seems to be in disagreement with the Treasury—nothing surprising there, then—on the question of how good the FSA is and whether it is too intrusive. Recently, I saw the City of London corporation's interesting piece of research on the implementation of the money-laundering regulations in the UK, which we had to implement in line with other European partners. Overseas territories outside the EU implemented something similar based on the original G7 agreement. The independent judgment commissioned by the corporation found that it cost twice as much in relation to gross domestic product to implement the regulations in Britain as in Germany. That is a huge over-reaction by Britain. The report goes on to say that the regulations do not make the UK safer from money-laundering than Germany, they are just a costly way of doing it. So, we have a paper chase where people have to take gas bills, electricity bills and passports to their building society just to pay in £100, even though they may have been banking there for many years. Surely, something can be done to relieve all that.

I hope that when the Minister responds he will propose some virile, strong and sensible deregulation. I hope that he will tell us what the Government plan to do during their EU presidency. I hope that he will put reform of the CAP and the common fisheries policy at the top of his list. I hope that he will have something to say about vitamins and food supplements, to bring relief to those who value those products and want to carry on buying them. I hope that he will tell us that there is to be real deregulation in his deregulation Bill and not just a lot of mumbo-jumbo and promises to do better in the future, and I hope that he will announce tonight that the Government have seen enough of the public reaction to ID cards and that they will not go ahead with that massive, expensive and over-the-top regulation in search of a problem.

Our economy needs less regulation. Our businesses need less regulation. Our people and families need greater freedom. Will the Government give it to us?

Click here for Hansard