HC Deb 24 November 1993 vol 233 cc436-7
3. Mr. Hendry

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the progress of his deregulation initiative.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton)

We have made reasonable progress on the deregulation initiative so far, but we cannot be satisfied with the progress that we have made. What we are trying to achieve is a culture change on the part of Ministers and Departments—and, I like to think, possibly a culture change on the part of the Opposition as well. There will be a deregulation Bill, which will shortly be introduced in the House. The proof of the pudding will be whether the Opposition are prepared to support us.

Mr. Hendry

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I assure him that the business community in my constituency considers that the Government have no more vital task than tackling over-regulation.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that, as well as tackling over-regulation—which he is determined to do—he will tackle over-zealous inspectors, who all too often appear keen to put out of business small, successful firms for the sake of some unnecessary and expensive regulation dreamt up by some inspector who knows nothing about the businesses that are affected?

Mr. Hamilton

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Regulations that might otherwise be thought reasonable can be made unreasonable if they are interpreted and enforced excessively. Through our local authority, business partnership initiative schemes, we are seeking to bring business and local authority enforcers together, so that authorities can understand their obligation to keep regulation within reason, and so that regulation does not become a burden on business.

Mr. Burden

It is easy to parrot cliches about deregulation, but is it not disgraceful that the Government should even consider weakening health and safety standards, when last year no fewer than 28,000 people suffered serious injury at work?

Mr. Hamilton

There is one regulation—uniquely—that I would like to introduce: a regulation to compel Opposition Members to know what they are talking about before they stand up. I realise that it would deny us a good deal of innocent entertainment, especially from the Opposition Front Bench, but I am prepared to forgo that enjoyment.

The hon. Gentleman is, of course, completely wrong. We do not intend to interfere with sensible health and safety regulations. The scales may fall from his eyes if I read him a press release from my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), the Minister of State, Department of Employment, who is responsible for the Health and Safety Commission. The press release states: The purpose of the review being undertaken by the Health and Safety Commission is to simplify, clarify and to update health and safety legislation. There is certainly no plan to sacrifice the high standards already in place—in fact, the aim is to improve them by judicious pruning.

Sir Michael Grylls

Does my hon. Friend accept that his initiative in introducing the Bill and really get the deregulation programme moving is welcome throughout the country? It is of prime importance, particularly to smaller firms, as my hon. Friend has said. When he comes to consider an announcement on the abolition of the statutory audit, will my hon. Friend resist pressure from other parts of Government to make it a mouse rather than a major announcement—in other words, to include all unquoted companies? There is no necessity for a statutory audit of any privately owned company. It would be disappointing if he were to abolish that audit for just certain companies.

Mr. Hamilton

I regard resistance as a negative attitude. My job is to be more pro-active than that and to attack Government Departments that are not playing a prominent enough part in the deregulation initiative. I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend says about small company audits, and I hope a decision on that will be announced very quickly.