1. Mr. Alan W. WilliamsTo ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effects of deregulation on employment protection rights for employees in small businesses. [20676]
§ The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine)Essential employment protection rights must be safeguarded. But removing unnecessary burdens on employers reduces barriers to growth and to flexibility. The Government would give full consideration to all the issues before making any proposals.
Mr. WilliamsDoes the Deputy Prime Minister still have the same faith in deregulation when exactly that policy, when applied to the animal rendering industry, produced bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the 1980s and the crisis that we now face, which could cost £10 billion or £20 billion and untold numbers of human lives? Should not the interests of the consumer and public health always override those of the producer?
§ The Deputy Prime MinisterThe hon. Gentleman will realise the serious way in which the Government are dealing with the issue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will make statements on our latest views later this afternoon. It does no good for the hon. Gentleman to produce a range of statistics, which can only raise public concern, when it would be better to judge the issue against the scientific evidence on which the Government take decisions.
§ Mr. StephenMy right hon. Friend will be aware that many thousands of people work in small businesses that depend on the beef industry. Does he agree that the press and the broadcast media are behaving like a bunch of hysterical old women over the current beef scare? Does he remember the egg scare, which cost many thousands of jobs? Does he remember the panic over AIDS? Does he remember the flesh-creeping microbe which was going to wipe out the entire population? Does he agree that the British people do not want to live in a nanny state? They want to have the facts, but they want to decide for themselves whether they and their children should eat beef.
§ The Deputy Prime MinisterI am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue. Although all of us in the House recognise that, in a democratic society, the press have responsibilities properly to question such matters, it must be highly questionable whether taking worst case scenarios, and presenting them in headlines as though they are likely scenarios, serves the public interest.
§ Mr. MandelsonShould not the right hon. Gentleman recognise the difference between deregulation to cut out unnecessary red tape in business and deregulation that puts at risk people's safety, health and peace of mind? The current beef crisis started with the scrapping of Labour's regulations on the content of cattle feed. Key safety recommendations made following the Clapham rail crash have been dropped in the run-up to privatisation. Last week, the Government were forced to scrap their deregulation of children's play schemes in the wake of the Dunblane tragedy. When will the Government realise that their responsibility is to help and protect people, not hurt them and leave them prey to unscrupulous individuals and crude market forces?
§ The Deputy Prime MinisterThat intervention is contemptible—even by the standards that the hon. Gentleman has made his own. The Government are paying the most serious attention to public safety: we are not prepared to prejudice public safety through our deregulation initiative. It would do the House far more credit to listen to what my right hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend will say in under an hour's time based on the latest scientific advice that they shall report to the House.
§ 2. Mr. JenkinTo ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about the coordination of policy on deregulation and the best way to transpose EC directives into United Kingdom law. [20677]
§ The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman)The best way to implement EC directives into United Kingdom law is that which imposes the least burden on business and others affected, while fully meeting our legal obligations.
§ Mr. JenkinHas my right hon. Friend become aware of the tendency to gold plate European directives when transposing them into United Kingdom law? Is he aware also that that tendency is driven by the legal basis on which directives are drawn up? It is safer for British officials to over-implement rather than under-implement directives and find themselves before the courts being prosecuted under European law. Should we not address the issue of the interface between European and domestic laws in order to sustain effective deregulation?
§ Mr. FreemanThe civil service and Ministers can best effect European directives by ensuring that they are written clearly in appropriate parliamentary language—it may not always be possible simply to copy out the original directive. It is possible to avoid what my hon. Friend describes as gold plating by ensuring that the language used in the text of any implemented United Kingdom legislation is clear, does not go beyond the purpose of the original directive and prevents misinterpretation and extension by the European Court of Justice.
§ Mr. SpearingCan the Minister assure us that, if any European Community directive is more lax than the existing United Kingdom regulations, it is within the terms of the treaty for Her Majesty's Government to make our statutory instruments stricter than the original directive? Does the Minister agree that that is necessary because any regulation should be a protection for some and an obligation on others?
§ Mr. FreemanI agree that it is important to ensure that, where regulations protect the consumer or the traveller and uphold health and safety standards, Parliament should decide the appropriate standard in most cases. Other countries may have domestic laws that impose lower standards. As to European directives, we should ensure that we sometimes take the opportunity to reform and repeal existing legislation. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the recent changes in trade mark legislation: we repealed our legislation and introduced a new, common European standard which will save some £60 million per annum.
§ Mr. Ian BruceDoes my right hon. Friend agree that we will face enormous problems in this country trying to implement the 48 hours work directive—leaving aside the question whether Madam Speaker would be able to continue to do her job? At the weekend, I spoke to people who are drilling for oil in the waters off my constituency, and they said that the regulations would make it impossible for them to do their job. One of the ways of ensuring that stupid regulations such as that are not imposed on the United Kingdom is for the Government to insist that every other partner country imposes those stupid regulations also; I think that other member states would then come to their senses.
§ Mr. FreemanI agree entirely with my hon. Friend that there should be equal enforcement among all European Union member states. That enforcement should be even-handed and proportionate to the risks or the problems involved. I favour drawing attention to other countries, Governments and ministries that are not enforcing existing laws in a uniform and a fair manner.