§ 43. Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Lord Privy Seal what representations he has received from the Confederation of British Industry about the volume and scope of European Economic Community legislation; and if he will make a statement.
§ Sir Ian GilmourThe Confederation of British Industry sent me a copy of the confederation's study "The Impact of European Economic Community Legislation on British Business". This study sets out the CBI's attitude on this question and my colleagues and I have found it very helpful. We share the CBI's belief that legislation can be justified only where there is a tangible and positive benefit.
§ Mr. TaylorAs the Government are committed to a reduction in the volume of legislation, what is the Minister doing to try to reduce the amount of trivial legislation which causes a great deal of concern and cost to industry? What success has he had? In particular, has he been able to give any joy at all to the CBI about the appalling lack of effectiveness of the anti-dumping procedures in the EEC since they involve a mass of paper and regulations which are wholly ineffective and are destroying jobs in Britain?
§ Sir Ian GilmourOur view on the first part of my hon. Friend's question is expressed in my main answer. We share the CBI view and we have made our view clear to the Commission. I hope that it will find general agreement. I do not agree that the anti-dumping legislation is monumentally ineffective. If my hon. Friend sends me examples or gives them to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade, we shall examine them. My hon. Friend will appreciate that this is a difficult matter, whether the EEC or an individual State is dealing with it. It is often difficult to act in time. If my hon. Friend provides evidence we shall certainly act upon it.
§ Mr. Denzil DaviesIs it not time that the EEC, especially the Commission, stopped wasting time on trivial legislation which puts a burden on industry? Would it not be better to reform the EEC which, after almost 30 years, is still suffering from the common agricultural policy, which is completely irrelevant to Europe today? Does he agree that the EEC has no industrial policy which is relevant to the problems of Western Europe?
§ Sir Ian GilmourWe all agree that we do not want to waste time on trivial legislation. We are also in favour of reforming the CAP and the Community. I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's language but I accept the general drift of his argument.
§ Mr. Dudley SmithIs my right hon. Friend aware that most of British industry believes that harmonisation for harmonisation's sake is irritating and harmful? Is he aware that he must do something to get the bureaucrats off the back of British industry, otherwise it will begin to fall out with the concept?
§ Sir Ian GilmourI agree that harmonisation for the sake of harmonisation is a waste of time and is wrong. The CBI study to which I referred strongly supports our membership of the Community.
§ Mr. JayIs the Lord Privy Seal aware that a number of EEC legislative proposals recommended by the Scrutiny 286 Committee for debate in the House have not yet been debated? Will the Government bring them forward? Can we be sure that the Government will not accept them in Brussels before they have been debated in the House?
§ Sir Ian GilmourIf the proposals have been outstanding for a long time they will be debated before they are acted upon. I shall look into the matter. I think that the right hon,. Gentleman is aware that we have been scrupulous in these matters, and we will continue to be so.