"Lifting the Burden"

HC Deb 16 July 1985 vol 83 cc171-85 3.31 pm

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Moore)

I wish to make a statement on the White Paper "Lifting the Burden".

One of the major objectives of this Government is to make sure that the right conditions exist for enterprise to flourish. This is essential for the creation of jobs and wealth. The country needs more jobs and we need more wealth to pay for all the socially desirable things we expect to be provided—such as pensions, the Health Service and education.

For far too long, successive Governments—albeit with good intentions—have tended to stifle much-needed enterprise with restriction and regulation. Today, we are publishing a White Paper called "Lifting the Burden", which sets out to put that situation right.

As the House will recall, in March of this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry published a report entitled "Burdens on Business". This showed that Government requirements constitute a major drain on business—particularly small business—in terms of direct cost and of management time.

"Lifting the Burden" is the result of the Government's consideration of the recommendations in that report and of looking more widely at the scope for change. It also reflects the widespread representations on the report which the Government have received.

The White Paper is the first major step in a continuing programme of removing unnecessary regulations. It refers to about 80 measures covering a wide range of initiatives in a number of areas, including planning, tax and social security, employment protection, and trade and industry—some of which have already been undertaken and some of which are for the future. Each is designed to allow firms to divert scarce resources away from complying with bureaucratic requirements and towards developing and expanding their business.

This is but the beginning of the process, for one of the most important elements in the White Paper is the setting up of a new system within Government to assess proposed and existing regulations from the point of view of the burden the may impose on business. The primary responsibility for this must be within the appropriate Department, but a Central Task Force is being set up, within the Enterprise Unit in the Cabinet Office, to assist Departments in their consideration of how the burden on business of regulations can be minimised.

I should emphasise to the House that we are not seeking to remove all regulations. Essential protection for workers, consumers and the general public must be maintained. And we must protect our quality of life. The Government have sought to strike the right balance between liberty and licence. The White Paper adopts a balanced approach. It represents a major step forward in giving businesses the freedom to flourish and grow. I commend it to the attention of the House.

Mr. Tony Blair (Sedgefield)

It is obviously not possible to give a detailed response at this stage, but we hope that there will be a full debate on the White Paper in due course. In general terms, we would, of course, support the abolition of unnecessary bureaucracy in the interests of small businesses, but the test that will be applied to the White Paper is whether it deals with the real problems of the economy and unemployment or whether it is just another Government gimmick designed to distract attention, and in particular whether we are talking about cutting unnecessary bureaucracy or about subordinating vital protections for the consumers and employees in the interests of ideological obsession with deregulation.

Turning to the substance of the White Paper, why do the Government identify the one major problem of regulation and then proceed to deal only with the minor ones? Is it not the case that the only area of regulation mentioned by more than one in five of the Department's own survey was value added tax? Is not that the main problem faced by small businesses? Is it not correct that the White Paper proposes no new action of any substance on that? Why, in particular, did the Government block Opposition amendments to the Finance Bill that would have eased the bad debt relief on small firms?

Secondly, will the Minister undertake that there will be no less environmental protection from the changes in planning procedure? Will he tell us why they are given such prominence when only a minute percentage of his survey said that they were a major factor?

Thirdly, any loss of standards—and I think there may be—in fire regulations or health and safety regulations would be a wholly unacceptable and wrong price to pay. How on earth can it be right for the Government to impose different rights and duties in regard to safety for the public and employees based on the size of the firm? Is the Minister saying that the risk of mishap is less with small businesses? If so, may I tell him that all the evidence indicates the contrary, and that small businesses give rise to the most safety risks?

We shall oppose vigorously the suggestions about unfair dismissal law and wages councils. What philosophy is it that says that fair play and fair rights of employment are a constraint on proper business activity?

Many of the proposals seem to have been derived not from business experience but from political doctrine. Why is it that the scrutiny which gave rise to the White Paper received views from the organisations representing employers but not from a single organisation representing employees? Why were the Institute of Directors and the Adam Smith Institute so closely involved with the proposal? Is it not the case, as the survey itself found, that most small businesses see problems with finance and sales as more serious than problems with compliance costs"? The same survey said: The main reasons for business being good are individual effort and good demand. If those are the main problems, why have not the Government dealt with them? Why create an agency to cut red tape but not agencies for industrial development? Why do we end planning protections but cut back on local authority initiatives which would create more jobs? Why do we cut back on unfair dismissal but not give proper training in the face of skill shortage? Why do we worry about the cost of meeting health and safety regulations but decline to lower interest rates?

At first blush, the White Paper is a shabby and irrelevant document from a Government whose ideology is unable to solve the real problems of our economy. Will a single job be created by the scheme? If not, of what use is it?

Mr. Moore

The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, has clearly not benefited from the opportunity to read the White Paper. I accept arid understand that we have had rhetoric and dogma in the extreme as opposed to the Government's attempt to respond to the "Burdens on Business" study, which sought to ask business what would be helpful in improving opportunities for employment—

Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East)

Shocking!

Mr. Moore

It is fascinating that as soon as there is an attempt—

Mr. Faulds

Tatty!

Mr. Moore

The patience of the Government is as long, if not longer, than the time taken by sedentary interruptions from the Opposition Back Benches. As soon as there is a serious attempt by the Government, as there is in this instance, to address many of the problems that business identifies in an endeavour to create jobs, we have ribald cat-calling from the Opposition that does so much harm to the House, and certainly to the Opposition.

The hon. Member for Sedgefield talked of rhetoric. I know that hon. Members generally have not had an opportunity to study the White Paper. I respond to the hon. Gentleman's first point by saying that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was present throughout his comments, and I am sure that he will have noted the hon. Gentleman's request for a full debate. Paragraph 1.1 of the White Paper states: This paper is about one important aspect of helping enterprise to grow—by reducing burdens imposed on business by administrative and legislative regulations. The White Paper is related specifically to that.

The hon. Member for Sedgefield spoke about VAT. The Government, through the Budget and in considering the Finance Bill in Committee, have relieved a substantial burden of bad debt by introducing £25 million worth of relief. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who I imagine speaks with some knowledge of industry and business, is not aware of the degree to which planning procedures have inhibited the growth and development of jobs. The matters to which the White Paper addresses itself in pages 10 to 16 are critical.

The hon. Member for Sedgefield asked about health and safety. Those of my hon. Friends who have not had the opportunity to read the White Paper in detail will be reassured—the hon. Gentleman made an assertion which, if true, would be difficult to argue with—by paragraph 5.6 on page 22 of the White Paper. The last sentence states: The Government are committed to maintaining necessary protection and have no intention of down-grading health & safety standards either generally or in relation to small firms. The hon. Gentleman's next question was directed specifically to jobs. I refer to paragraph 1.16 on page 4 of the White Paper. Research Associates examined 200 businesses as part of the "Burdens on Business" report. It was clear that there was a cumulative job loss of 200 within that net of 200 firms. That might be an indication of the burden that has been carried by the 1.6 million businesses in Britain and the job losses within them. It is clear from business surveys that jobs are lost in consequence of regulations. It is clear also that the removal of the regulations is a major first step in the Government's attempt to help in this area.

Sir Peter Hordern (Horsham)

If it is necessary for the Government to take 80 separate measures to help small businesses, it is a wonder that they have been able to survive at all. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on bringing, belatedly, these measures into existence. Is there anything in them that will raise the level at which VAT is to be paid and the level at which corporation tax is to be paid by small businesses? Is anything to be done about the wages councils?

Mr. Moore

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The White Paper relates to business as a whole, not just to small businesses, which are especially burdened by regulations and legislation.

I should have responded to one of the points made by the hon. Member for Sedgefield by drawing attention to the reference to the VAT threshold on page 17 in paragraph 4.2. It states: This threshold below which firms are exempted from having to charge VAT is the maximum permitted under EC law. The Government believe that Member States should have more flexibility to raise their VAT threshold if they wish. This goal is being pursued through the initiative launched by the Prime Minister at the European Council meeting in March this year. That is a clear commitment to action which has already been initiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. There are no references in the White Paper to corporation tax threshold.

Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East)

Is the Minister aware that the main burden which needs lifting from British industry is the burden of the present Government and their restrictive policies? Is he aw are that it is a complete illusion to think that the current mass unemployment has anything to do with the trivia mentioned in the White Paper, including the attack on the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974? If he believes all this stuff, will he give the House an estimate of how many more jobs will be created as a result of the proposals in the White Paper?

Mr. Moore

I have already tried to illustrate, by referring to page 4 of the White Paper, the problems that business encounters in relation to the inhibition of employment through regulations and legislation. I tried to show how it could be quantified. Hon. Members might like to interest themselves in the White Paper. I appreciate that they have not had time to read it, and I accept that difficulty. However, I hope that when the hon. Gentleman, who is a fair man, reads it he will recognise that, while at other times we may be discussing the Government's fundamental economic policy, here we are discussing an equally important set of policies which relate to the removal of the kind of supply side rigidities that have so inhibited the development of jobs and employment.

Mr. John Browne (Winchester)

Does my hon. Friend accept that all men and women, regardless of party, who believe in freedom and enterprise will welcome the statement as pure music? They will see it as a bold, imaginative and, above all, co-ordinated attempt by the Government to remove bureaucratic burdens from employment. However, will he assure the House that he will introduce measures to ensure that protection is given to the green belt and to ensure the abolition of wages councils?

Mr. Moore

I am not sure that I fit the bill for introducing music, but I am pleased that my hon. Friend noticed the degree of co-ordination represented by the White Paper. My noble Friend in another place has been responsible for introducing the degree of co-ordination that the Government need. The debate is about the difference between licence and liberty. As my hon. Friend is plainly seriously interested in the issue, I draw his attention to page 10 of the White Paper which is entitled "Planning and Enterprise".

My hon. Friend asked about the green belt. The planning aspects are clearly identified in paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3. They make it clear that The Government's policy is to simplify the system and improve its efficiency … An efficient and simple system can speed the planning process and facilitate much needed development which helps create jobs—in construction, in commerce and industry, and in small firms. The White Paper then makes this important point: The Government is equally concerned to protect"— [Interruption.] This may not be important to Opposition Members, but I know that it is important to people outside the House—

and enhance the environment in town and country, to preserve our heritage of historic buildings and rural landscape, to conserve good agricultural land and maintain the green belts. I am sure that that statement is welcome.

Mr. George Park (Coventry, North-East)

Does the Minister realise that the greatest service the Government could render industry would be to ensure that the terms of trade between this country and other countries are fair and equal? Why does he not propose to do something about discriminatory tariffs and the differences in fuel and energy costs? Why does he continue to levy on motor vehicles a tax which is not applied to any other commodity in this country? Those are some of the measures that would lift the burdens from industry.

Mr. Moore

The hon. Gentleman is making legitimate points about questions that are probably better addressed at other times. He will be particularly interested in page 29 of the White Paper, which illustrates the actions that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others are leading within the European Community to try to ensure that the regulatory burden that emanates from Europe, as well as that from within the country, is reduced.

Sir Reginald Eyre (Birmingham, Hall Green)

Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite the surprisingly ill-informed reaction of Labour Members, the White Paper's approach is very much to be welcomed, particularly the proposals relating to the simplified planning zones? These could be helpful in contributing to the solution of the problems of the inner city areas, and would help to attract developments into those areas, where unemployment is worse. When will legislation be introduced on this? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that in the meantime he will encourage local authorities to prepare their plans and to make applications for this beneficial form of zoning?

Mr. Moore

I appreciate my hon. Friend's remarks. I know his long experience in this sector and I enormously respect the expertise that he brings to bear. I no longer express surprise at Labour Members' reactions. I know that my hon. Friend will be particularly pleased to study with care page 11 of the White Paper which, in paragraph 3.6 (i), goes into considerable details about the important—[Interruption.] Labour Members may be unaware, until they go back to their constituencies, of the importance of simplified planning zones. They will find that it arouses considerable interest in their local authorities.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre), with his considerable experience, will particularly appreciate what is said in the section on simplified planning zones in the White Paper. The White Paper says: It is proposed to introduce new legislation". I hope that that will be very soon.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil)

As the Minister will know, the alliance has supported the Government's attempts to try to lift the burdens on small businesses where those are sensible and responsible. Therefore, we welcome the general direction of the White Paper, even though it appears at first sight to be somewhat long on rhetoric and short on specific measures.

I have three questions. First, would not a full day's debate on this matter be useful? Secondly, would it not be highly inappropriate to shift the burdens from the small business men if they were to be shifted to small business employees, resulting in extra exploitation and reduced conditions of work? Thirdly, will the members of the Central Task Force include representatives of both small businesses and small business employees?

Mr. Moore

I unreservedly thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the basic thrust of the White Paper. I find his welcome a little jaundiced by his suggestion that it is long on rhetoric. We have not had to conspire with the hon. Gentleman's party in this and he will find on closer examination that there are many specific details.

I cannot comment further than I have already about the possibility of a debate. That is up to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is still here and has heard the hon. Gentleman's comments. Because of the excellent material within the White Paper, I can see no reason why the Government would not welcome such a debate.

The hon. Gentleman is right. This is an attempt to shift the burden of regulation and legislation from where it is unnecessary, and from employer and employee alike. We do not intend to shift the burden from one to the other. It is envisaged that the small Central Task Force will have representatives from the outside world, and I am sure that my noble Friend Lord Young will concern himself with ensuring that small business men are included in the brief. I shall make sure that I put the hon. Gentleman's points to my noble Friend.

Mr. Michael Grylls (Surrey, North-West)

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the United States the creation of jobs in deregulated industries has been twice as fast as that in other industries? Therefore, the major advance that has been announced today in freeing owner-managed businesses from destructive bureaucracy is very much to be welcomed. Can we expect to receive yearly White Papers to describe progress on the deregulation programme so that the House of Commons may measure how fast we are moving?

Mr. Moore

I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome of the White Paper. I should like to see action flowing from the recommendations rather than a whole series of White Papers. My hon. Friend is right in the major thrust of what he said in relation to the United States. We mention the matter on page 3 of the White Paper. He is right to mention aspects of the way in which deregulation in the United States has not only enhanced job creation but reduced massively costs to business and industry and to the taxpayer. It has been successful all round.

Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East)

As the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland does not appear on the White Paper, will the Financial Secretary tell the House whether the White Paper relates to Scotland as well? If it does, what is the position in relation to simplified planning zones? Does not the Minister regard it as very dangerous that a private developer will have the right, under the proposals in the White Paper, more or less to ask the Secretary of State to instruct a local authority to proceed with a planning application under the simplified planning zone procedure? Is not that highly dangerous, coming from a House of Commons where so many private developers are represented through the voices of Conservative Members?

Mr. Moore

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw our attention to the different planning position in Scotland. It is referred to in the White Paper. Obviously the hon. Gentleman has not had time to read it, which I appreciate—

Mr. Ewing

I have.

Mr. Moore

I am sorry. I should like to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to page 10, paragraph 3.5, which states: The Secretary of State for Scotland is also issuing a new circular on development control priorities and procedures in which these principles will be drawn to the attention of Scottish planning authorities. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's additional points to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I shall be happy to ask him to answer the hon. Gentleman's specific points.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak)

I welcome the White Paper, but can my hon. Friend tell us whether we shall change the accounting procedures with regard to auditing, because many small companies are treated by the Revenue as if they were ICI? Will that be incorporated in the simplification of the whole revenue procedure?

Mr. Moore

There is a study of specific accounting points that are referred to in parts of the White Paper and details in regard to accounting procedures. That study is due to report in the autumn—in September, I think—but most of the detailed improvements relating to accounting are separate from the particular proposals that are likely to be in the taxation Green Paper, which relates to non-cumulation and the possibility of the combination of tax and social security and tax and NIC.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

Will the hon. Gentleman look at page 11, paragraph 3.6(i), which states that local authorities will also be required to consider proposals for the establishment of SPZs initiated by private developers"? Does that mean that every local authority will, as a matter of law, have to consider every plan that is put forward by a private developer? That is what it says. Has it occurred to the Government how many staff will be involved and the sheer cost of that? Is not this in fact a private developers' charter?

Mr. Moore

With respect, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the beginning of that paragraph, which states that new legislation will be introduced. It will be possible at that time to discuss the details that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. The central point is in the next sentence, which says: This will enable the local planning authority to specify types of development allowed in an area, so that developers cart then carry out development that conforms to the scheme without the need for a planning application and the related fee. Planning permission for other types of development can he applied for in the normal way. That is the central theme. I know that the hon. Gentleman will wish to address the additional points on the introduction of the legislation.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley (Richmond and Barnes)

The White Paper clearly shows that the Government agree with the vast majority of people in this country that reducing unemployment is the main social and political priority. Does not my hon. Friend agree that those who seek to preserve the regulations that so often are a disincentive to employment should justify that as a higher priority than increasing employment?

Mr. Moore

Yes, absolutely.

Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East)

Is it riot a fact that the White Paper will do nothing to lift the burden of mass unemployment from 5 million people in this country—[Interruption.]—but, rather, will increase the rate of exploitation of workers, particularly youngsters, women workers and the 9 million low paid? Is the Minister aware that paragraph 5.10 of the White Paper represents a continuation of the Government's idea that lads and lasses working in hairdressing, on a £33.40 minimum wage, are responsible for the mass unemployment? Where do the Government get the idea that 2.75 million young workers who come under wages councils are responsible for the mass unemployment that we have in Britain?

Mr. Moore

To bring a semblance of reality back to the debate—

Mr. Nellist

Unemployment is real for those without work.

Mr. Moore

—paragraph 5.10 points out, among other things, the unnecessary restrictions that relate to w omen's hours of work. At present, technically, women cannot do more than six hours' overtime and, unless exemption is granted, women cannot work shifts. The proposed legislation will remove those outdated constraints. I should have thought that hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome the way in which the basic rights of such people are still protected and would welcome the removal of discrimination against women.

Sir William Clark (Croydon, South)

In view of the fact that between 1980 and 1984 140,000 net new businesses wer set up, does my hon. Friend agree that the lifting of burdens is bound to accelerate the rate at which businesses are established? In view of the EEC regulations on VAT, may we have more flexibility in the threshold of £19,500, at any rate for new businesses, even if that means increasing the threshold for new businesses for the first few years of their existence?

Mr. Moore

I welcome my hon. Friend's comments about the generation of new businesses, which is critical to creating employment. I referred earlier to paragraph 4.2, which gives the Government's position on the threshold, and I have taken careful note of my hon. Friend's remarks about the threshold and new businesses.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

Why do small business men in my constituency always tell me that they do far better under Labour Governments than they do under Conservative Governments? Could it possibly be because the monetary stance of Labour is more helpful to them? Is the Minister aware that his statement will do nothing to deal with the monetary stance of the Conservatives, which is at the heart of the problem?

Mr. Moore

Much as I personally like the hon. Gentleman, I could not for a moment begin to deny what people would say to him, knowing his particularly delightful, aggressive personality.

Sir Dudley Smith (Warwick and Leamington)

Is my hon. Friend aware that an increasing number of people who have established small businesses in recent years have been looking forward to the day when there would be a bonfire of unnecessary regulations and that they will, therefore, welcome his announcement today? I have not had a chance to read the White Paper. Does it deal with finance? If not, will my hon. Friend have a word with the chairmen of the clearing banks because greater flexibility on their part would go a long way towards encouraging small businesses?

Mr. Moore

My hon. Friend is well informed on these issues. He may not recall that earlier I mentioned the way in which the White Paper referred to one important aspect of helping enterprises to grow—by reducing the burdens imposed on business by administrative and legislative regulations. I am aware that my hon. Friend raises a point about which we hear in other parts of Government, and I shall make sure that the Chancellor and my other colleagues are informed about what he has said.

Mr. Nigel Forman (Carshalton and Wallington)

I welcome the proposals in this comprehensive White Paper, but is my hon. Friend aware that perhaps the most important point to small businesses is the need to raise the VAT threshold? Is he aware how vital it is for us to press that point in the Community and to achieve progress, with a VAT threshold of perhaps £50,000, as soon as possible?

Mr. Moore

My hon. Friend reiterates a point that has been made three times. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will not only welcome his support for the relevant part of the White Paper but will have heard his comments.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

The Minister should stop trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. Is it not a fact that the Tories' macro-economic policy of the last six years has resulted in more than 100,000 small and larger companies going under, with each year more bankruptcies and company liquidations occurring that in the preceding year? That process has continued throughout the reign of the Tories. How on earth can our problems be solved by the Government simply allocating clever little titles such as "Lifting the Burden" and how can micro solutions conceal the fact that the economic stranglehold of the Tories prevents companies from recovering'?

When will the Minister offer a decent solution—for example, by telling small companies to go to the Governor of the Bank of England and say, "We would like to be treated in the same way as Johnson Matthey. We are a small firm, but we are employing some people. Why cannot we be treated in the same way as the City crooks?" Why do the Government have double standards—one for the their friends, and one for those whom they are prepared to cast into the gutter?

Mr. Moore

I was waiting eagerly for the subject of Johnson Matthey Bankers to be introduced into this micro debate. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate—because occasionally he tries to embrace facts—that the net increase in the number of small businesses in the past five years has been about 140,000. There has been a net increase at the micro level. He might care to give the House the benefit of his Socialist form of macro-economic policy when we next have a major economic debate. I am sure that that would be fascinating to the country at large.

Mr. Tim Eggar (Enfield, North)

I welcome the White Paper, which is clearly good for employment. My hon. Friend said that every Department would have to carry out an exercise on compliance costs. May we be assured that the results of that exercise will be published on the face of Bills and regulations? The House as well as Ministers should understand the cost of regulations that are being introduced.

Mr. Moore

I am not sure that publishing all attempts at achieving a more effective cost analysis within Departments with every proposal is necessarily the best way of ensuring that the proposal sees the light of day. However, I shall consider the point that my hon. Friend makes.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth (Stockton, South)

I welcome any effort by the Government to remove burdens on businesses, but is the Minister aware that many people will be puzzled about why it has taken the Government six years to take the initiative that he has announced this afternoon? If he is serious when he says that essential protection for workers, consumers and the general public must be mantained, will he explain how the essential protection for workers will be maintained in view of the proposed changes affecting wages councils, particularly in respect of statutory sick pay and improving industrial tribunal procedures?

Mr. Moore

The answer to that part of the hon. Gentleman's question concerning the time involved is that the Prime Minister, in August of last year, in response to suggestions from the Department of Trade and Industry that there was considerable concern about the pressure of regulations on businesses, set up a committee which reported to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in March 1985, and in the three and a half months since that date the White Paper has been produced. I should have thought that, in Government terms, that was very fast indeed.

I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish to address his other questions about wages councils and protection to the Secretary of State for Employment. I urge him to look with care at the section in the White Paper which relates to sickness pay, because the position and rights of workers, as dealt with in the White Paper, are carefully protected while the issue goes for further consultation.

Mr. W. Benyon (Milton Keynes)

I draw my hon. Friend's attention to paragraph 3.15 of the White Paper. If it is true that the deregulation of new rents is beneficial to employment, why should it not be done now, by backing the legislation that my hon. Friend is to introduce?

Mr. Moore

My hon. Friend's voice will obviously be added to the pressures which the Government always bear in mind when trying to decide at what point to do those things that they consider it right to do.

Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West)

What consultation did the Minister have with the various employees' organisations, including the trade unions. and to what extent will employees be represented on the Central Task Force?

Mr. Moore

My noble Friend said in his statement in another place about the "Burdens on Business" study that an invitation had gone out to all in the outside world to give advice and to make a contribution. To the extent to which they did that, or ignored that advice, I cannot force trade unions or any organisations to contribute to any debate. The report has benefited from considerable outside debate.

I cannot specifically say who will be in the task force, but it will be composed essentially of civil servants and some people from outside the Civil Service. I shall address my hon. Friend's point about representative employees as opposed to small businesses to my noble Friend in the other place.

Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe)

I welcome the White Paper's proposals as they affect the operation of the planning system. Does my hon. Friend agree that the balance which the planning system exists to strike is not identical in a period of relatively high unemployment as in a period of relatively full employment? Does he share my hope that the White Paper's proposals will lead to increased recognition of this fact by local planning authorities?

Mr. Moore

I particularly welcome that point. I should have thought that all who were concerned about unemployment would seek to make that point. I draw my hon. and learned Friend's attention to paragraph 3.13 on page 15 which states: the twin priorities of generating jobs and providing sufficient land for housing have not been reflected fully or quickly enough in structure plans and the planning decisions of local authorities. We must ensure that this important point is put across in our debates.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)

Will my hon. Friend ensure that a VAT inspector who examines the books of a business and finds that they are in order signs a statement to that effect so that another VAT inspector who disagrees with his findings cannot announce that he was wrong and try to collect many years of back duty?

Mr. Moore

My hon. Friend's suggestion seems on the surface to be so eminently sensible that I cannot see why I cannot simply say yes. I shall carefully consider his point and write to him about it.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

Although I welcome the proposals in the White Paper as far as they go, does my hon. Friend accept that matters such as interest rates, energy costs, fair trading conditions and rates probably impose a greater burden on small businesses than any of the aspects to which the White Paper referred? Will my hon. Friend therefore direct the Treasury's attention to those matters? I welcome the planning proposals in the White Paper, especially as Carswells Transport Limited which has a head office in my constituency, is likely to have to make 600 people redundant because of a decision by the Tewkesbury district council.

Mr. Moore

I am glad that my hon. Friend has illustrated so graphically an aspect of the planning implications for jobs which might be in jeopardy. There are many aspects of business beyond the particular burdens imposed by administrative and legislative regulation. The White Paper addresses that problem. I am delighted to have my hon. Friend's support in our attempt to face these difficulties.

Sir Kenneth Lewis (Stamford and Spalding)

As one who has been involved in a comparatively small business, I know that the White Paper will be warmly welcomed by people in business, provided that the Government get on with it. The White Paper states that the task force will be set up for three years. Will it really take three years? I hope that the task force will have something to show for its work if not this Guy Fawkes' day then by 5 November 1986. Will my hon. Friend take account of the fact that "Burdens on Business", which was issued by the Department of Trade and Industry, came out in March? The Cabinet task force should direct its attention to that report on which there has not yet been any action.

Mr. Moore

My hon. Friend will be delighted to know that this White Paper is the action that flows from the "Burdens on Business" report. I draw the attention of the House to the relative position of that three-year rule in relation to the task force. Paragraph 8.7 on page 35 states: In order to prevent the setting up of permanent machinery which may outlive its usefulness—and to serve as an example to others—the Government have decided that the life of the task force should be limited to about three years, in the first instance, at which stage there will be a review of its performance". I reassure my hon. Friend that the three-year period has nothing to do with the desire to implement the actions in this document immediately.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

As it appears that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is about to establish a splendid platoon of civil servants—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

Section.

Mr. Marlow

—section of civil servants to scrutinise any regulations that might threaten to drown our small businesses in a sea of paper work or to throttle them with red tape, will my hon. Friend say that, as the greatest threat to the life and sanity of any small business comes from regulations defined by the megabureaucrats in Brussels, those regulations will be subject to the same scrutiny by the same committee?

Mr. Moore

I know that my hon. Friend, who has been corrected on his infantry advice—10 is nearer a section than a platoon—will be pleased to look at paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 on page 29. They bring out the ways in which the Government's initiatives in Brussels will ensure that the same type of unit is created there so that the same attempt is made to reduce the regulations and the excessive burdens on the bureaucrats. We have already pressed in Brussels for a review of all existing and proposed legislation and for the establishment of a permanent procedure to vet permanent and future proposals with respect to their impact on business.

The Government have undertaken a review and have put to the Commission and other member states an initial list of 40 directives or regulations which have been adopted or are in the pipeline and which we regard as excessively burdensome. My hon. Friend will be happy to know that action is already in train.

Mr. Tim Yeo (Suffolk, South)

Is my hon. Friend aware that the White Paper is most welcome because, irrespective of individual items, its net effect will be to promote the creation of jobs, except perhaps for members of the Opposition Front Bench? I reiterate my concern that two of the most enticing measures—raising the VAT threshold, and deregulating new private lettings—do not have a timetable set for their implementation.

Mr. Moore

I thought that I had made clear the Government's strong position on the first matter. I recognise that my hon. Friend is adding to the support for both items to ensure that there is a greater sense of urgency.

Mr. Michael Hirst (Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the most irksome burdens on small businesses is the preparation and completion of quarterly VAT returns? When reviewing the VAT threshold, will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of smaller businesses paying VAT on an estimated basis during three quarters with full annual accounting once a year?

Mr. Moore

I shall certainly look carefully at that proposal.

Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stortford)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the reaction of the Opposition Front Bench, especially of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), reflects the fact that Labour Members do not understand how new jobs will be created through small businesses? Does that mean that the Labour party is basically unqualified to take office? Does my hon. Friend agree that any self-respecting business has long since ignored trivia, much of which is included in the White Paper, but welcomes their exemption? Will my hon. Friend pay attention in his Department to a long-seen need to simplify methods and encourage low interest rates to obtain venture capital for more small business start-ups?

Mr. Moore

I hear what my hon. Friend says in his latter point, but I know that he will welcome the extraordinary success of the business expansion scheme and the way in which many regard the opportunities available through the business expansion and loan guarantee schemes as being much more attractive than investing in many other parts of the world.

On my hon. Friend's first point, I can happily leave the absence of the Opposition's qualifications to the electorate.

Mr. Michael Fallon (Darlington)

Is my hon. Friend aware that the White Paper will be warmly welcomed in the north-east where the biggest burdens on business are the Labour councils which frustrate planning applications, refuse to sell industrial land freehold and seem hell-bent on establishing business-free zones? Will my hon. Friend draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to the need to allow the industrial companies that want to expand the right to buy land freehold from public authorities?

Mr. Moore

I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to that point. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. His description of business-free zones, in comparison with the attempt to introduce simplified planning zones, perfectly illustrates the difference between the Government's attempts to give practical help and the Opposition's posturing.

Mr. Henry Bellingham (Norfolk, North-West)

Is my hon. Friend aware that many small businesses and entrepreneurs in west Norfolk will welcome these proposals? Obviously judgment cannot be passed until action is taken, and I urge the Government to get on and take that action. Is it not time that the small firm was totally exempted from the requirements of the annual audit?

Mr. Moore

In the White Paper, there is a reference to a discussion in relation to the potential exemption of the small firm from the annual audit. With regard to the first point, my right hon. and noble Friend in another place will be leading this activity within Government with his normal sense of aggression. I am sure that, through his leadership, we will have action in this area.

Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North)

I welcome the broad thrust of the White Paper but notice that some Departments appear to have contributed rather more wholeheartedly than others to the work of Lord Young. I am sure that Thanet farmers will be pleased to know that The Agricultural Departments take action whenever possible to ease the burdens on agricultural, horticultural, fisheries and food sector businesses imposed by domestic legislation". May we therefore look forward to the early abolition of the Potato Marketing Board?

Mr. Moore

I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks about the Potato Marketing Board to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East)

Does my hon. Friend feel that this welcome White Paper goes far enough in helping to create new jobs? If he is suggesting that 1.6 million new jobs could be created, are we doing enough to get rid of Socialist red tape?

Mr. Moore

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a first step, it is an important beginning, but it is a critical step in the long-term direction of removing the burdens which restrain business from creating new job opportunities.

Mr. Alan Howarth (Stratford-on-Avon)

Is my hon. Friend aware of studies showing that in the United States a remarkably high proportion of existing businesses were originally started in their founders' homes? Will he comment on those findings? Does he agree that any measures that the Government may be able to take to make it easier for somebody to start a business in his or her own home in this country could be of significant benefit in reducing unemployment?

Mr. Moore

My hon. Friend is right about the American studies. I have some experience of that side of the Atlantic. He will be interested to know that the Government have considered this matter in the White Paper at pages 12 and 13 in section 3.6, paragraph (vii) (a), (b) and (c). I know that he will be particularly pleased with what the White Paper says on this issue.

Mr. Neil Hamilton (Tatton)

I welcome my hon. Friend's spirited response to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) when he said that he would put maximum pressure on Ministers to implement these proposals. Does he expect to get more cooperation from them on deregulation than the Treasury has had on containing public expenditure?

Mr. Moore

I shall try to ignore the potential twist in that tail and simply say that the product is here. There has clearly been a major effort by all Departments of Government to ensure that within three and a half months there is a comprehensive attempt to lift the burdens on business.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle)

Does my hon. Friend agree that rural unemployment is a particular problem, not so much because people in villages experience difficulty in finding jobs but because they have to go to towns to get them? This is in no small way due to the controls which central Government and local government have piled on village industry.

What will the task force be doing to encourage people to set up industries in their own homes, given that most new businesses are clean and efficient? In particular, will my hon. Friend encourage the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to go rather further? According to paragraph 5.29, its only contribution so far has been to free certain aspects M trade in cattle semen".

Mr. Moore

I think that my hon. Friend will know that the Ministry does go a little further. The planning regulations applicable to rural areas emanate in most cases from the Department of the Environment. I know that he will be pleased when he reads the White Paper with more care because he has argued so vigorously for many of the proposals in it. I will certainly press my right hon. Friend the Minister to consider what other contribution he can make to this aspect of deregulation.

Mr. James Hill (Southampton, Test)

My hon. Friend has made great play of the deregulation side of the White Paper. Is he aware of my early-day motion on impediments to free ports? It concerns a series of regulations being brought forward by Customs and Excise, and, if ever there was a case for deregulation, it is within the free ports area.

Mr. Moore

I am aware of my hon. Friend's early-day motion. I will certainly examine that matter again with Customs and Excise.