HL Deb 18 June 1999 vol 602 cc569-92

12.40 p.m.

Lord Willoughby de Broke

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.

It will not have escaped your Lordships' attention that today is Waterloo Day. It seems particularly appropriate that the Bill I present is heavily influenced by the playing fields of Brussels. The purpose of the Bill is to require the relevant Minister to report to Parliament on the impact on British business of specific EU legislation that has been put into law either by a directive or which has become law automatically through secondary legislation and regulations.

It will be no news to the Government that businesses in this country, large and small, feel that their competitiveness is being seriously eroded by the never-ending tide of legislation which has been coming their way; most comes directly or indirectly from Brussels.

I should like to give your Lordships a few examples of some of those directives and regulations. There is the parental leave directive; the acquired rights directive; the working time directive; and the VAT directives in all their glorious variety. I think that we are now on the sixth VAT directive. The urban waste directive will add massively to the costs of fish processing plants. As one example, a firm of fish processors sent me information which indicates that their charges are likely to rise from £40,000 to over £1 million a year. We have the landfill directive. The dangerous goods safety adviser directive requires the use of a certified safety adviser during loading, transport and unloading of dangerous goods—and I am informed that dangerous goods under this directive will include Tipp-Ex and aerosols. The Birmingham Chamber of Commerce has estimated the cost of that directive at £580 million with a benefit to industry of only £30 million.

Then we have the multiplicity of regulations. I give two examples. The Dairy Products Hygiene Regulations run to 165 pages and require a PhD in microbiology and a law degree to understand them. Then we have the impending disaster to the rural economy caused by MAFF's current interpretation of the Meat Hygiene Service Regulations whereby small abattoirs, meat processors and their suppliers will be forced out of business by having entirely disproportionate costs forced upon them.

Then there are the fire regulations, the health and safety regulation and environmental regulations. I do not need to continue. Your Lordships get the general picture.

I wish to run briefly through the Bill. Clause 1 defines the purpose of the Bill and at subsection (4) states what the report shall include. Subsection (4)(c) requires the Secretary of State to assess what could or should be done to reduce the cost and burden on business. Paragraph (d) requires that the report contain separate chapters on the impact on business in Scotland. Wales and Northern Ireland. Subsection (5) requires that the impact assessment be laid before the UK Parliament by the end of May following the financial year to which the report relates. This gives the Government about seven weeks in which to prepare the report. This should ensure that the impact report is relevant and can be acted upon.

Clause 2 requires that the Secretary of State consult widely with all those affected and that arrangements be made and advertised to enable individuals and organisations who may have missed that consultation to make their own case to the Minister and his representatives.

Clause 3 requires the Minister of the Crown to state at Second Reading of a Bill what provisions, if any, the Bill contains to give effect to Community legislation, and what that legislation is. This is similar to the present statement on the face of a Bill which indicates compliance or non-compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Clause 4 defines the Community legislation which is within the scope of the Bill, and the meaning of "impact" for the purposes of the Bill.

The Minister will probably say that there is already adequate scrutiny of EU legislation in our two Houses, and that in any case regulatory compliance costs assessments are issued whenever a new law or regulation is enacted. I do not agree that that is adequate. Nor, I believe, does the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, or the Employers Forum on EU Social Policy, all of which I have consulted on this matter. The EU Scrutiny Committees report on selected EU legislation. As a Member of your Lordships" Select Committee I can testify to how much hard work goes into making those reports both thorough and balanced. But I can also testify to the fact that legislation and draft legislation pour out of Brussels at such a rate that proper scrutiny has become impossible, never mind the fact that the Commission bureaucracy seems to have major problems in getting the papers out within a time-scale which will allow for proper scrutiny. This has been the object of complaint by the Select Committee on several occasions, with little or no effect to date as far as I can see. In any case, scrutiny is no substitute for proper legislation.

The compliance costs assessments are inevitably imprecise. They come before the true costs can be properly assessed. I ask the Minister how widely these compliance costs assessments are distributed. Do the businesses which will be affected by them receive them as of right; or do they and their representative organisations have to find out what is in the legislative pipeline and then ask for them? That is the only question I shall ask the Minister. I hope that he will give me some comfort on that. I do not deny the usefulness of these preliminary assessments; and my Bill does not seek to replace them. It requires the Government to report on past costs annually.

If the costs for the year are roughly the same or less than the preliminary assessment, then all well and good. If, however, the costs are greater, the Government will have to explain how and why these costs have increased; how they got it wrong; and what they propose to do to put it right.

One obvious example is the effect of EU legislation on employment. Has a measure been job positive or job negative? If positive, fine; if negative, then Parliament should know that its enactments have damaged employment. On 12th May the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, who is in charge of the Better Regulation Task Force, made a most encouraging speech—it was his maiden speech—in an excellent debate on small firms. He said that, bigger businesses have the resources to comply with complex regulations. Small ones do not".— [Official Report, 12/5/99; col. 1238.] I shall now present your Lordships with an astonishing statistic. Microcompanies—that is, companies with up to 10 employees or fewer—make up nearly 95 per cent of all businesses in this country, and they employ over 10 million people. They are the creators of new jobs. By contrast, big companies seem to cut jobs when the bottom line looks rocky. One has only to look at the headlines: Barclays announced that 6,000 jobs are to go"; and— Invensys shedding 5,000 jobs"; and this morning in The Times— Prudential to cut 4,000 jobs". Small companies could replace those jobs, but they need support, not strangulation by regulation. They need directives to be applied flexibly, as they are in other countries of the EU, and not gold-plated by overzealous bureaucrats as all too often they are in this country. We need to take more advantage of derogations where they are available and need to interpret the spirit of the directive rather than its strict letter.

For example, the preamble to the Social Chapter on Parental Leave—it is giving small business quite a headache—states: This agreement takes into consideration the need to enhance the competitiveness of the community economy and to avoid imposing financial administrative and legal constraints in a way that would impede the creation and development of small and medium-sized undertakings". Therefore, there are such provisions, even in some of the more radical EC legislation, which ought to be taken on board.

This Bill is not anti-government. Indeed, it seeks to work with the grain of government policy in its endeavours to reform the European Union labour market. It is not anti-European; it is not xenophobic; and it will not cause us to miss the various trains, planes, boats and bicycles which are now so vital to our future well-being. However, it is anti the unnecessary legislation still flowing from an arrogant and discredited Commission and it is anti gold-plating. By the way, am I alone in wondering what this discredited Commission, which resigned en bloc and in disgrace only four months ago, is doing still turning out these regulations?

This Bill is pro employment and pro business, particularly pro small businesses, which are the lifeblood of this country's economy. During the debate on small firms, I was interested to note that my noble friend Lord Taylor of Warwick, whom I have never met or spoken to, asked at col. 253 of Hansard for an annual statement to Parliament on the costs of regulation and the Government's plan to reduce that cost in the following year. This Bill would do exactly that and would be welcomed by business and I hope by government. I commend it to the House.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Willoughby de Broke.]

12.50 p.m.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, on reading through the Bill which has been presented by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, my first reaction was one of sympathy. Any information that is helpful to the business community and to the citizens at large is most welcome. Indeed, it may be within the recollection of your Lordships that for the past quarter of a century I have made repeated requests—I shall not say "demands"—for such information, and not always with adequate response.

Therefore, my first observation is that we are dealing with information about the past. It has no bearing on what is going to happen in the future, aside from the presentation of a report. Although it may be rumoured to the contrary, that I have little sympathy with Ministers, I have a great deal of sympathy with them. I know the time which they have at their disposal after they have dealt with the ordinary administrative affairs of their departments and carried out the tasks in their original brief and those added to it by the Prime Minister; and I must say that the requirements relating to the compilation of a report on the impact costs of EC legislation—on what happened in the past and after the event—are formidable indeed. I doubt whether any Minister working full-time on the preparation of a report on what happened last year would be able to spend a couple of hours a day going through the stuff before it finally reached its reform.

Let us see what the Bill requires of the report. It is to be: a summary of the views of the individuals and bodies consulted", and the consultative requirements are extensive. It is: a summary of representations … where the impact identified by the Secretary of State or by any individual consulted or from whom he has received representations … should be taken to reduce or offset that impact". In addition to general assessments affecting Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly of Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly, not later than May after the financial year to which it relates the Secretary of State has to provide all those bodies with a report, but before he does so in relation to the year that has passed he must consult, organisations representing business and industry, including small businesses … trade unions … organisations representing companies providing financial services … registered charities … organisations representing the legal and accountancy professions". I am glad to see that last provision and I look forward to any consultations which the noble Lord may care to have.

All that represents not only time that must be spent by the Minister and his senior and semi-senior civil servants, but time that must be taken by the people who are interviewed. There will be an additional cost on business to provide that time after the event, without being able to influence in any way what has happened. I do not believe that that is the right way of going about it.

Incidentally, I observe that one of the Ministers pre-empted today's debate by providing a Parliamentary Answer to a Written Question tabled in another place yesterday. Mr Brady asked the Secretary of State: What estimates his Department had made of the cost of … the social chapter's parental leave directive … the works council directive … and part-time work directive to British business".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/99; col. 204.] In reply, the Minister indicated that he would issue a statement and that a regulatory impact assessment will accompany the draft regulations. Therefore, the noble Lord on the Front Bench can already claim that in part he has pre-empted what is required by the noble Lord.

It must not be assumed from this that I am not in sympathy with the broad drift of the proposals. Indeed, I am very much in sympathy. But it seems to me that the effort to impart information should be made before the regulation is approved and not afterwards. I have already indicated that even the production of the report ex post facto would take a long time. It might therefore be complained that providing the information before the regulation is approved will also take some time. But what does that matter?

I do not discern, and many of your Lordships will not discern, a demand by the electorate of Europe last week to be provided with more regulations. In fact, there was no demand for any regulations at all. Therefore, I ask myself whether the European population—made citizens of Europe at Maastricht—are loud with complaints that they have not been provided with any regulations for at least a year. On the assumption that the Commission stopped issuing regulations, on the assumption that the Council decided that the small amount of time it devoted to considering anything was worth while sacrificing, Europe might have a whole year without any regulations whatever and without raising the slightest complaint. Of course, the agricultural community would complain if from time to time agricultural prices were not amended in order to conform with exchange rate variations and so forth. But there would be no complaint.

Moreover, I regret to say that it is also the case that there is no realisation either in government or outside of the origins of the great majority of these regulations. I shall be dealing with that matter later today, time constraints permitting. As I shall endeavour to show at a later stage in our proceedings today, regulations emanate from hundreds of committees without any intervention of Ministers at all. Some of the regulations have a very great impact indeed on the lives of businessmen.

Unfortunately, I have not time to read examples of regulations made without any intervention from Parliament whatsoever and probably without any consideration even by Ministers. They have had considerable ill-effects on our business community. I can cite case after case, quoting the regulation concerned, where it has been sought to enforce it by the enforcement authorities in our own country on behalf of the Commission and ostensibly on behalf of the Community. Many of them have ruined individual businessmen. It has involved firms going into liquidation on account of the interpretation of measures that subsequently, through legal action—too late, of course—proved to be wrong.

Firms have gone into liquidation in this country and incurred vast legal costs because of an interpretation of Community regulations, all of which are covered in this Bill. Therefore, I urge Her Majesty's Government in reply to this debate, while legitimately rejecting it, that they should nevertheless take on board the lesson that is involved: that is, that all legislation brought from the Community to this country, before it goes on to the statute book or becomes enforceable, should be subject to an impact assessment. That would be done by the Government themselves and by business. The regulations certainly would not be missed in the country. There will be no clamour; no processions down Whitehall or assemblies in Trafalgar Square, or even in the country towns, protesting that people have had no regulations for a year. It would not even be noticed, in the same way as the public did not notice the European elections which took place last week.

Therefore, while disagreeing with the noble Lord's Bill on the ground that it deals with the past, on behalf of myself and I believe many others, I would like to thank him very much indeed for bringing forward this Bill, enabling ourselves and I hope others to learn from it and to make quite sure that any regulation from the Commission, from wherever it emanates, is subject to proper scrutiny and estimates by the Government of the impact costs before it reaches the statute book and is enforced. On those grounds alone I shall certainly give a fair wind to the Second Reading of the noble Lord's Bill so that it will enable further and profitable discussions of the real issues involved.

1.3 p.m.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, of course I support this excellent Bill and congratulate my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke on his initiative in introducing it. However, I am not entirely sure whether my noble friend intends that his Bill should apply only to Euro legislation which will have been forced down our throats in any preceding year or whether the Government would be required to report annually on the result of all Community legislation with which we have been saddled since our tragic decision to join the European Economic Community, or Common Market as it then was, in 1972.

I feel sure that the latter requirement, if not already included in Clause 1, is essential if only to bring home to the Government and to the people of this country the full extent of the calamity which our adherence to the Treaty of Rome has brought us. If that means that the complaint made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is extended to legislation which is even older than the legislation that he has in mind, then I suggest that Ministers and their civil servants could spend very much more time doing that and not pursuing new legislation in Brussels.

The people of this country have been assured by all three of our political parties and by our political media for at least 25 years that our membership of what is now the EU is a good thing. There is no serious debate about what life for this country might be like if we left the Treaty of Rome or the EU and maintained our present trading position with it. Both the previous government and this one steadfastly refuse an objective cost-benefit analysis.

So it is a great credit to the common sense of the British people that recent polls show that some 40 per cent of them want to leave the EU despite all the lies that they have been told by the aforementioned parties for 25 years and that a much higher percentage of them are certainly not going to be fooled into signing up to European economic and monetary union, that final prison door of full political subservience to Brussels, as the election last week clearly demonstrates.

This Bill goes to the heart of why the British people remain so staunchly and wisely Euro-sceptic. That means that they dislike the Treaty of Rome and everything which it allows the bureaucracy in Brussels to force on us. Euro-scepticism does not mean that most British people dislike the Continent of different European nations, each with its own glorious history and culture, which they admire and respect. We Euro-sceptics love that real Europe: we hate the Treaty of Rome and all its works.

We have only to consider a short list of those British interests which have already felt the dread hand of the crazy Bureaucrats in Brussels—and which I suggest that this Bill should cover—to see why that is so. Apart from our currency, those interests include our food, water, fisheries, agriculture, waste disposal, art market, slaughter-houses, Eurobond market, working week, herbal medicines, bridges, sparkling cider, lorries, take-overs, dairy farmers, towbars, whisky distillers, pheasant shooting, market gardeners, Civil Service, egg producers, taxis, cheese makers, paper rounds, boat builders, legal system, hallmarks, oak trees, duty-free shopping, ponies, condoms, the roast beef of olde England, the London bus and the excellent lavatory designed by Thomas Crapper.

Behind every one of those damaged or threatened interests lies an almost incredible saga of bureaucratic excess and ineptitude in Brussels, which has often been gleefully made even more damaging by our bloated bureaucracy and pusillanimous government Ministers here.

Of course, I do not have time to go through each one now, but if any noble Lord wants to challenge me on any one of the interests that I have mentioned, I will be delighted to give him the full, ghastly, unexpurgated story of how Brussels came—

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. I listened to the long list of things coming out of Brussels. I sympathise with the noble Lord and understand. He mentioned a directive on condoms. I believe that the general public would consider that quite way out. Could he, perhaps, elaborate on that? What has the European Union to do with condoms?

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. By coincidence I was looking at it this morning just to make sure. I have here, in a plain brown envelope, the European Union directive on condoms. We are often told that the European Union has ceased interfering in the nooks and crannies of British life. But I can tell noble Lords that these 50 pages prove the opposite. There was nothing wrong with the UK condom manufacturing industry when this directive was introduced in 1996.

I am happy to take the noble Lord and your Lordships through some of the unbelievable detail of this piece of interfering nonsense which, as I say, runs to 50 pages. For example, on page 6, we come to the definitions of a condom. Such definitions are all legally binding in a directive. It states: For the purposes of this European standard, the following definitions apply". There is quite a lot that I shall spare your Lordships in the interests of propriety, but we then come to Article 3.5 where we are told how to recognise a visible hole in the condom: A hole in the condom that is visible under normal or corrected vision". But our friends in Brussels are not going to leave us with that. They want to describe in law what a non-visible hole is at Article 3.6. It is: a hole in the condom that is not visible under normal or corrected vision and is defined as a defect through which a quantity of water can be forced by rolling a condom containing 300 millilitres of water (or", your Lordships will be pleased to hear, electrolyte) on coloured absorbent paper such that all parts of the surface of the condom are brought into contact with the absorbent paper, the quantity of water being such that it can be detected visually as a wet mark on the paper". We go into design: Condoms may be of the designs given in the following list", but I shall spare your Lordships that because it is not intended to be exhaustive. However, I imagine that some of your Lordships would find that list quite informative.

We come to bursting volume and pressure and we are told that a defective condom is defined as, a condom which fails the requirement for volume or the requirement for pressure or both requirements; ie, a condom failing both requirements is counted as I defective condom". I cannot go through all 56 pages. We have a page and a half on how we decide the length of a condom. You are not allowed to say, "Just measure it". There are some amazing diagrams. We have two and a half pages on the method for the determination of bursting volume and pressure of a condom. We have another two and a half pages, starting on page 24, for the method of the determination of force and elongation of break of test pieces of condoms.

There is a new offence here at F.3.1, I think: Preparation of test specimen. Move the condom inside the package such that it is away from the area where the package is to he torn. Tear the package and remove the condom". Then the offence: Under no circumstances use scissors or other sharp instruments to open the package".

Earl Attlee

My Lords, my noble friend is going into great, perhaps excessive, detail. Is there anything about recycling in the directive?

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, I think there is. I am very happy to send my noble friend a copy of the document so that he can study it at his leisure.

On page 25, we get to F.5.2: Calculate elongation at break", that is Eh, in brackets, as a percentage of each test piece by using the following expression", so this is the formula,

"K + 2d - p x 100 / p where: K is the length of the test piece in millimetres, rounded to the nearest millimetre", and so on. That incredible document is now being pursued by the EU on a worldwide basis. It demonstrates what I was saying before; that this is the kind of detail which British manufacturers have to put up with. As far as I know, they were making perfectly adequate condoms before. Indeed, they were world leaders in condoms before this nonsense came out. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention.

Taken together, the damage done to those British interests and the costs incurred in following the relevant diktats from Brussels all add up to a colossal drain on the British economy. But this cost is hidden from the British people because if there is one aim that our three political parties share in their attitude towards the Treaty of Rome, it is a determination to keep its results from the British electorate.

One can talk privately now to former Conservative Ministers who confess that much of their time as Ministers, and even more of the time of their civil servants, was taken up in disguising the fact that legislation they were introducing was in fact imposed upon this country by Brussels. This certainly applies to the Ministry of Agriculture and I suspect it runs across the board.

Another fairly big example would be the water directives, especially the urban waste water directives, the drinking water directives and the bathing water directives, the latter of which, when I sat on your Lordships' Select Committee, was described as a complete waste of money by no less than our own Department of Health.

No one seems to have the faintest idea how much those cost or what their benefit has really been, and certainly no one has dared to look at what the cost and benefit of cleaning up our water on our own initiative would have been without the massive additional and often superfluous cost imposed by Brussels.

For example, I remember that in 1996, the noble Lord. Lord Stoddart of Swindon, elicited from the Government the fascinating statistic that we had by then, since 1972, spent some £14,000 million on water purity dictated by Brussels and only £1,000 million on infrastructure and supply. I do not know what the current figures are and would be grateful if the Minister could supply them when he comes to wind up. However, when I was on your Lordships' Select Committee three years ago, it looked as though spending on infrastructure and supply, which is not dictated by Brussels, would be rising to around £10,000 million by 2002, but the spending on Brussels directives has spiralled up to around the £40,000 million mark since 1972. Will the Minister clarify this and would he also be good enough to confirm that the usual bureaucratic stupidity is observable in the fact that the massively expensive drinking water directive does not require the lead pipes in people's houses to be changed, which are what cause much of the supposed damage to health? Will he confirm also that the United Kingdom had some of the purest drinking water in Europe before this nonsense started? Can he estimate what proportion of our vastly increased water charges are due to European water directives as opposed to additional expenditure on infrastructure and supply?

Finally, and I think importantly, can he tell us what all the other European countries are doing about these directives, not just some of them but all of them? I had a Written Question on this recently and the Government said that one or two countries were following them, but we have not the faintest idea what most of them are doing.

As I have indicated, this Bill, if drafted sufficiently widely, would expose the true effect of our adherence to the Treaty of Rome, which is why the Government will not want it. That is the real reason that they will not want it.

After all, this Government continue to mislead the British people about the European Union just as assiduously as did the previous Conservative government. I have only time to give your Lordships two examples of that. First, let us look at the example of the Prime Minister himself in Questions in the House of Commons last week on 9th June, at cols. 639 to 643, when he repeated twice one of the most inaccurate and misleading slogans which is constantly uttered by those who favour handing over the last shreds of our national sovereignty to the emerging corporatist superstate in Brussels.

At col. 639, the Prime Minister was putting the Government's well-worn position that they would join EMU if it proved to be successful and if the Government judge it to be in the national economic interest. The Prime Minister went on: That is because more than 50 per cent. of our trade is with Europe and more than 3 million jobs are dependent on Europe". Then at col. 641, the Prime Minister was teasing the Conservatives by suggesting that the logic of their position of wanting to renegotiate some aspects of the Treaty of Rome meant that they would have to take the UK out of the EU. He want on to say: Given that more than 50 per cent. of our trade is with Europe, that would be a mistake for Britain". But it is simply not true to say that 50 per cent of our trade is with Europe. What is true is that perhaps as much as 42 per cent of our exports go to the EU, quite a chunk of which merely pass through Rotterdam and Antwerp to destinations outside the EU.

But that 42 per cent represents only some 14 per cent of UK gross domestic product, which is surely a fairer yardstick of our overall trade than exports alone. To confirm those figures, your Lordships could look at a Written Answer that I received from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, on 18th January.

Therefore, I hope that the Government will stop using this grossly misleading figure of 50 per cent when they promote the need for our membership of the European Union; nor does the Prime Minister's figure of 3 million jobs depending on our trade with the EU appear to have any basis whatever in fact. As evidence of that I would refer to a Written Answer that I received from the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury, on 30th March 1999 in response to my Question as to the effect of the European single market upon net UK job creation figures between 1993 and 1997. The Answer he was obliged to give was: There are no meaningful figures on the effect of European single market legislation upon net UK job creation between 1993 and 1997".—[Official Report, 30/3/97; col. WA32.] We are, of course, powerless in the European Union, thanks to the terms of the treaty. I shall not remind your Lordships again of the terms of qualified majority voting which make that inevitable. Certainly in all areas covered by the single market, all of our industry, commerce and environment, that is so.

It will not come as a surprise to your Lordships that my solution to the problems covered by the Bill would quite simply be to leave the Treaty of Rome. There is really nothing at all frightening about that. We are the fourth largest economy in the world, with which we trade in surplus, while we trade in deficit with the European Union.

Leaving the European Union would be a thoroughly positive thing for the United Kingdom and for the British people. We could adopt the Swiss model, which is highly successful. We could, perhaps, look at a new North Atlantic free trade area. It is, in that respect, gratifying that the existing NAFTA (North American Free Trade Area) is already negotiating with Norway and Iceland; or, we could simply opt for complete independence under the World Trade Organisation, which has, in any case, brought international tariff barriers down to below 4 per cent. That means that the EU is redundant, if we leave out its sinister aim of political unification, which is also denied by this Government as it was by the Conservatives.

I know that leaving the European Union is a little way off and this is not the time to consider the sunlit uplands of the United Kingdom unburdened by the shackles of the incompetent, fraudulent and hopeless European Union. So, in the meantime, I support this excellent Bill. I hope that it can be drawn widely enough to show the British people the true nature of the quicksand into which their political leaders have so blindly led them, and which I hope, before long, they will have the clarity and the courage to leave.

Baroness Amos

My Lords, before the next speaker, perhaps I may remind your Lordships that we have two further debates this afternoon. The Companion suggests that your Lordships might wish to keep within a 15-minute limit for your speeches.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, I apologise to the House if I went three minutes over that time. I think it was occasioned by my diversion into the detail of the directive, for which I was asked.

1.25 p.m.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, on bringing the Bill forward. It deserves support and I sincerely hope it will get a Second Reading today. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, for his explanation of the condoms directive, which shows quite clearly how officials, and indeed presumably Ministers, are engaged extensively with such ridiculously small items. As far as I know, condoms have been produced satisfactorily and safely in this country and throughout Europe over a very long period of time, long before the Treaty of Rome was signed in 1957. So, a great deal of money is wasted.

I should also like to support the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, in believing that we would be far better out of the European Union than we are in it. As one who opposed our entry into the Common Market, as chairman of the Campaign for Independent Britain and as one who still believes we should come out—and the sooner the better—I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that he and I are in unison.

I appreciate the comments about the Bill made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. We really should have the assessments before things happen. However, that is not the way of the world at present. I believe that the provisions of the Bill will help to concentrate the minds of Ministers and civil servants, who will have to produce this information before they start making regulations and directives, especially as they will be required to report to Parliament and the various devolved assemblies. One flaw in the Bill is that it does not require the Government to find time to debate the reports in Parliament. Of course, they can just report but they never provide government time for those reports to be debated. So, we shall have to consider that in Committee.

The Government may say that there is adequate scrutiny at present. Clearly there is not because so many absurdities—some of which we have heard this afternoon—which often destroy businesses and cost jobs get through the net. A flood of regulations goes through Parliament, as has been mentioned, without any debate, and many important directives receive only a cursory glance by Parliament, both in the House of Commons and in this place.

Community legislation tends to have a greater and more serious impact on smaller businesses. They are not properly consulted about Euro-measures even though they are the ones the hardest hit by such measures. A recent publication entitled Inspector at the Door, issued by the Federation of Small Businesses, is well worth reading. It was published this year. I hope that my noble friend will obtain a copy. He will then perhaps realise just exactly how the system impinges so badly on the work of small businesses. They are plagued by a big raft of inspectorates, including some from the European Community. That distracts them from the real job of running those businesses and adds to their cost. I believe that that is recommended reading not only for Ministers but for civil servants.

It is not only small businesses that are worried. Even the New Labour-friendly CBI is worried by the seemingly unstoppable flow of regulations and legislation from the European Union. On pages 18 to 20 of the June issue of CBI News, an article warns firms to watch out for the "next wave" referring to a new raft of labour law in prospect. So even big business, as well as small businesses, is now becoming worried about what is happening in the European Union.

The horror story of European legislation and intrusion is told in stark detail by Christopher Booker and Richard North in their excellent book, The Castle of Lies. It was first published in 1996 but it is still relevant today. That, too, should be compulsory reading for Ministers. It shows how the bureaucrats have undermined democracy by bamboozling Ministers and sidelining Parliament.

Only yesterday an article appeared in the Daily Telegraph, written by Anthony Jay, whom we all know as the creator of "Yes Minister", which blew the gaffe on how government is carried on in this country. I cannot go into detail and quote from his article at length, but I believe that it should be read in full by Ministers, MPs and Members of your Lordships' House.

Mr. Jay said that all bureaucracies are bad, but the EC is a federal behemoth—I like that phrase. He also said, If Brussels bureaucrats succeed in getting every country to join a single currency, they will be unstoppable". How I agree with that. How I have noted over the years that power after power has been ratcheted away from Parliament and from our own elected government to the unelected bureaucrats sitting in Brussels. So, good for Mr. Jay. Let him write more about that because I am sure his views will be welcomed.

The Maastricht Treaty was supposed to stop the flow of measures from Brussels through subsidiarity. But what happened? As many in this House predicted when we fought the Maastricht Treaty and the official Opposition refused to fight the Maastricht Treaty, the Commission treats subsidiarity as a joke. It continues to interfere in the nooks and crannies of our national life, which the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, when he was Foreign Secretary, deplored in such trenchant tones.

Just to illustrate how the tide of such legislation is still flowing in, Christopher Booker's column in last week's Sunday Telegraph tells how the rebirth of some of our great steam railway engines, like the Flying Scotsman, which have been lovingly rebuilt at great cost. could be at risk. They may not be able to operate in the future due to the imposition of expensive testing regimes for vital components built on a one-off basis. So even our steam engines, so loved by the British people and used by them when they are on holiday, are now at risk.

Christopher Booker referred also to some of the foreign vets working in our abattoirs, but I do not have time to go into that. Indeed, one could spend the rest of the day quoting cases of bureaucratic interference and misbehaviour, including the fraud about which we heard this year.

I will not detain the House any longer, except to reiterate my support for the Bill, which I hope will receive a Second Reading today and indeed be passed in its entirety by this House and another place.

1.33 p.m.

Viscount Trenchard

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke on introducing this Bill, which should command support from all sides of the House.

The flood of legislation from Brussels continues to increase and, as your Lordships are well aware, much of it receives at best inadequate scrutiny here at Westminster. Members of your Lordships Select Committee on the European Communities and of the European Legislation Committee in another place have repeatedly complained about this. Even directives are rarely debated and are often introduced as statutory instruments. It is often unclear how many Orders in Council will be required to put a Bill fully into effect, as your Lordships may well have noted in the case of the Pollution Prevention and Control Bill and the Employment Relations Bill.

It is clear that small and medium-sized businesses are particularly ill-equipped to understand, let alone implement, much of the vast myriad of detailed regulations emanating from the Commission. As a director of a company operating a small country house hotel in Devon, I am well aware of the enormous unwarranted costs we were required to incur in the refurbishment of the kitchens, re-siting the ovens, replacing the fine old wooden cupboards and shelves with stainless steel ones, and so forth. I understand that many small hotels have had to close because they are unable to bear the costs of implementing regulations of this kind.

The Working Time Directive is another case in point. As the Institute of Directors stated in its European manifesto, Rogue employers will continue to thrive in the informal economy whilst their law-abiding counterparts struggle with the voluminous (but not quite 'definitive') guidance from the DTI on, for example, the Working Time Directive". This measure will, according to the DTI, cost British business some £1.9 million. It seems that we in this country are much more conscientious in implementing EU regulations than are our continental neighbours. I would certainly not advocate that we should compromise our standards of observation of the law; indeed, rather the reverse. We should exhort the other European countries to raise their standards to ours. If they did, their governments would surely be more likely to join us in calling on Brussels for much more restraint in the introduction of new legislation. A law that is unenforceable is a bad law. A law which imposes obligations or restrictions on businesses or citizens which are disproportionate to the benefits it provides is a bad law.

In spite of the excellent work undertaken by noble Lords serving on the European Select Committee and its sub-committees, the achievements of which are rightly recognised in the country at large and which do much to enhance the reputation of your Lordships' House, the problem seems to be getting worse. It is of course frustrating that neither this House nor another place has any power to amend European legislation. The effect of my noble friend's Bill would be to increase the accountability of Ministers to Parliament in their representation of British interests in the Council of Ministers.

The power of member states to veto proposals has diminished and there has been a significant move towards a system of qualified majority voting as a result of the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. There are unfortunately moves afoot to extend this system to other areas, such as tax policy. In that connection I also warmly welcome the introduction of the Bill of my noble friend Lord Waddington to restrict Ministers' powers to agree to tax harmonisation measures which at present seriously threaten employment in and the prosperity of the City of London.

I cannot understand why the Government are still seeking a compromise solution to the Commission's withholding tax proposals which will still cause this country much more relative damage than it will to other member states. The Government should, without further delay, declare their firm intention to veto this measure, the threat of which has already affected confidence in the City.

In these circumstances it is absolutely necessary to increase the role of the British Parliament in the framing of Community legislation. Requiring the Secretary of State to consult with representatives of business, the trade unions, the professions and other interested parties, and then compile an annual report to Parliament is an excellent suggestion and should increase the obligation on Ministers to negotiate effectively on our behalf with their counterparts. The very sensible provision in the Bill to require Ministers to make an impact statement on British legislation required to give effect to European legislation will also serve the same purpose. I suggest that such impact statements should be required to be included on the face of a Bill in the same way as statements of compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights are now included.

Paradoxically, as power moves from the Council of Ministers to the European Parliament, the power of member states' parliaments will diminish. It is not encouraging that in spite of the wishes of your Lordships' House we have instituted a system of choosing our representatives in the European Parliament which provides for the least degree of democratic accountability and it seems that people have given their verdict on that system. For that reason also the Bill would serve the useful purpose of increasing public awareness of what is going on in Europe, both here at Westminster and in the country at large.

There are several industries and activities where we are world leaders but where we face particular threats. As regards the art market in this country, my noble friend Lord Hindlip has told the House on other occasions about the loss of jobs and damage to the market resulting from the Government's failure to prevent the droit de suite from being applied in this country.

I strongly welcome the Conservative Party's seven-point plan to cut red tape from Europe announced by my right honourable friend Mr John Redwood on 25th May. Among the seven points, I think that the point requiring the costs to affected countries of every piece of legislation introduced to be considered by the Commission and that requiring an assessment of the extent of compliance with existing legislation before the introduction of new proposals are especially important.

What I think the Government do not realise is the fact that we have a world market today, not a European market. Ring-fencing the European market by European red tape inhibits the competitive advantages of European players on the world stage. The opportunities available to British industry and commerce as a whole outside the EU are obviously greater than those inside the EU, especially given the respective expected future economic growth rates. For Europe and its member states to be strong and achieve their full potential and prosperity for their peoples, we need to restrict the continuing increase in bureaucratic regulations emanating from the Continent.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said that the Bill only had effect after the event, after the European legislation had been introduced. I agree with him that it would be highly desirable for all European legislation to be subjected to an impact assessment by the Government before it is introduced. However, the effect of my noble friend's Bill would indeed be that Ministers would actually have to carry out an impact assessment prior to the introduction of legislation, because they will be uncomfortably aware of the need to report to Parliament afterwards.

I am grateful for having had the opportunity to speak in this debate and look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. I have also enjoyed listening to the contributions of other noble Lords.

1.41 p.m.

Lord Nunburnholme

My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, on bringing this very necessary Bill before us. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, on his insight and foresight. He covered his subjects totally and completely comprehensively. I thought that he made a magnificent speech. As for the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, I should point out to him that a man who is a little bit wiser than I am, whose name, I believe, is Solzhenitsyn—although I stand to be corrected—said: A man who looks backward, looks forward with one eye closed; a man who never looks backward, looks forward with both eyes firmly shut".

I have many points to speak of the coming debate. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, touched upon tax harmonisation and I have some hard guns to fire on that matter. However, if the noble Viscount does not mind, I will leave that for the next debate. Nevertheless, he got the point and was smack on. I thank him very much for that.

1.43 p.m.

Lord Taverne

My Lords, during the last debate I thought that I saw the noble Lord, Lord. Willoughby de Broke, nodding his head with approval at some of my remarks. If that was a correct interpretation, I must apologise to him because I cannot quite reciprocate on the occasion of this Bill. I cannot return the compliment because I cannot support his Bill, although I could perhaps support Clause 3 with its idea of an impact statement on legislation.

Why? It is true that there is a substantial body of legislation coming out of Brussels which places burdens on companies. To my mind, that is an inevitable consequence of our membership of the single market. As our political and economic integration with Europe proceeds, as our exports are more and more oriented and our trade is more and more intertwined with that of Europe, of course we are affected by a host of European pieces of legislation. It is also true to say that in the past much of this has been oppressive, but there has been an improvement. For example, there is less concern now from Brussels with the harmonisation of, say, bottle-tops than there used to be.

However. even if this legislation places considerable burdens on companies, that does not justify the Bill. Indeed, it is a non sequitur. I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington—at least as regards part of his remarks. I am not sure whether he welcomes my support, but on this occasion we do agree on one point; namely, that the effect of the Bill would not necessarily be helpful in any event because it would be retrospective and it would also be extremely onerous. It would not only be Ministers' time that would be consumed in trying to find out what the direct and indirect effects would he; there would also have to be a great army of civil servants. Is the noble Lord really suggesting that we should have a vast increase in the number of civil servants engaged in collecting statistics on something as vague as the direct and indirect impact on business of the various pieces of legislation? It would be a very difficult task to identify exactly what the impact was. What good would it do? At this point I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, because I think that it would be even more difficult if it related to future legislation when the impact would be even more uncertain.

There is another question that arises. If this is necessary in the case of legislation from Brussels, why should it not be necessary for legislation from the UK? There is no reason why we should not have the same sort of impact statement because that, too, can be extremely burdensome to industry. Let us imagine, for example, the Bill on which the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and I were engaged earlier in the pre-legislation committee on the financial markets and services. It would be very difficult to assess what the exact impact, whether direct or indirect, is going to he. How could we ask a Minister to make a. full statement on the subject? With great respect, I am afraid that the Bill is not practicable.

The latter raises the question as to why it has been brought forward. I do not think that it is necessarily the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, but certainly there are others who welcome this as offering an opportunity to try to create more trouble in our relations with Brussels. It seems to be part of a sort of guerrilla campaign in which more and more impossible demands are made whereby power is sought to be restored to the UK Parliament. That is something which is perfectly logical from the point of view of the noble Lords, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Stoddart. They want us out of the European Community. But what is interesting is that that seems to be more and more the direction in which the Conservative leadership is travelling. This business about "in Europe but not run by Europe" is slowly beginning to edge us into moving out of Europe altogether. I give way to the noble Lord.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Will he give me one instance in the course of any speech that I have made either in this place or outside where I have said that we want to get out of Europe? If he cannot do so, would he kindly withdraw his remark?

Lord Taverne

My Lords, I cannot give an instance and I am very happy to withdraw it. I am sorry. I identified the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, too closely perhaps with the views expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Pearson. I certainly apologise to the noble Lord if he is not with them on that goal.

I do not think that this is a matter which really needs any long speeches or intricate analysis. In my view it is an impractical Bill and I certainly do not think that it will do any good whatever to our relations with the European Union.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he really not going to answer any of the analysis which has been offered so far, and which cannot be called intricate, or is he simply saying that he wants to be in the European Union however awful it is, and that is that, and he will not answer the criticisms of those of us who want to leave?

Lord Taverne

My Lords, I shall not debate the whole question of British membership of the European Union at this moment. It is going to be a long day anyway. I am concerned only to deal with the particular provisions of this Bill which in my view are quite impracticable.

1.49 p.m.

Earl Attlee

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke for introducing his Bill this afternoon. His list of EU directives was certainly extensive but it is also perhaps a measure of the co-operation and scope of EU activity.

The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, said that he could not support the Bill. I can understand some of the reasons for not wanting to support the Bill. But then he also expressed interest and support for Clause 3. However, all noble Lords are aware of the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, in these matters and we are grateful for his analysis. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, with regard to the Conservative Party's attitude to the EU that we on these Benches have absolutely no interest at all in leaving the EU.

All three items of European business today cover similar issues of concern. Not surprisingly the list of speakers is also similar in all three cases. We have touched on the issue of tax harmonisation. In the next debate I intend to consider the withholding tax, although some noble Lords have touched on it already. It would be interesting to see an impact statement on the withholding tax and also a Section 1 report on the withholding tax, if it ever came into being.

I found the contribution of my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch interesting and detailed. I have no information but I suspect that the directive he quotes from is based on the British standard for condoms. I can understand the EU's reluctance to quote a British standard in an EU directive, but it is a little hard to understand why the directive could not refer to an ISO standard, even if the ISO standard was derived from our own British standard.

Noble Lords will be aware that we on these Benches are quite clear that we want to be in Europe but not run by Europe. That point was noted by most of those who voted in the recent European elections. Clause 3 applies only to primary legislation. Your Lordships will be aware that most EU legislation is made under the European Communities Act as secondary legislation. If my noble friend is minded to take this Bill a further stage, he might like to consider amending Clause 3 to catch secondary legislation too.

On that point, I meet many ordinary people of all kinds and conditions outside this House. They often complain to me about new laws and regulations. These new laws and regulations often implement EU directives. By and large, they are desirable but I have to explain to these people that there is little I can do in Parliament because, as I have mentioned, all this legislation is implemented under the 1972 Act.

The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who sadly is not present at the moment, referred to the unstoppable flow of regulation, as he put it, and the effect on small businesses. One example that he mentioned was the threat to preserved steam engines. Some time ago we debated the hot surfaces directive in your Lordships' House, I believe, in the form of a Starred Question. This issue of new regulations for boilers and steam vessels will be of serious concern to many steam enthusiasts. However, I am not aware of any steam vessel failure with preserved steam equipment. The Minister will not have the answer available but will he write to me and tell me exactly what the Government's policy is with regard to steam boilers in preserved equipment?

One major concern about EU regulations is that government departments have a bad habit of "gold plating" EU regulations. I well recall the debates we had in the previous Parliament concerning new eyesight standards for drivers of commercial vehicles. The Minister at the time pleaded that he was only implementing EU directions. However, later the Minister found that he could water down the regulations. I am sure that an impact statement would have concentrated the Minister's mind at that time. I do not know what my noble friend plans to do with his Bill. It is, however, vital that Ministers consider the impact at least as carefully as whether the Bill complies with the ECHR.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, can he explain to the House how this country will be in Europe but not run by Europe when we remain bound by the Treaty of Rome? As he himself said—he may or may not be right as to whether this applies to Clause 3 of the Bill—most European legislation now comprises secondary regulations which do not even pass through national Parliaments. It is an expression which I know has been put about by the Conservative Party often recently, but how can we possibly not be run by Europe when we are bound by the Treaty of Rome, the Single European Act, the Maastricht Treaty and the Amsterdam Treaty? It is just not possible, is it?

Earl Attlee

My Lords, we have the Council of Ministers and we have the European Parliament.

1.56 p.m.

The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)

My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for not participating in the internal debate of the Conservative Party as to whether or not the Conservative Party should support a policy of withdrawing altogether from the European Union. If I may, I shall restrict myself to the Bill spoken to this morning by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. In all sincerity I congratulate the noble Lord on his clear and helpful exposition both of the purpose of the Bill and its detail. I am afraid that the Government cannot support the Bill. I shall briefly explain why that is.

First of all, the Government believe that the existing arrangements provide sufficient information for the impact of Community legislation to be understood in advance of the passage of that legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, is aware, at present the Government prepare explanatory memoranda for Community legislation on a case-by-case basis. Significant impacts are identified in these documents, including significant financial impacts on business both large and small.

In addition, where the Government propose measures to implement Community legislation which is likely to have a significant impact, a regulatory impact assessment, including a small business litmus test, is prepared and published. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, pointed out, the Government have recently indicated that they intend to strengthen these arrangements so that in future it will clearly be the case that when regulations are introduced giving effect to European legislation there will be a clear regulatory impact assessment.

I entirely agree with the assessment of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that the right and practical approach is that both Houses of Parliament and the wider public should be made aware in advance of any impact of Community legislation on business and beyond before it is introduced. With the greatest of respect, what the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, proposes is frankly absurd in its scope. As I understand the position, what he envisages is that a report should be prepared each year by the relevant Secretary of State dealing with what the impact has been in the previous year of all Community legislation. That is not just the legislation that is passed in the course of that year, but, I assume, that which has been passed throughout the previous 26 years.

The noble Lord envisages that the Secretary of State would first of all consult a wide range of bodies: businesses, trade unions, companies providing financial services and, no doubt, lawyers and accountants of every kind. As I understand it, the noble Lord envisages that public meetings should be arranged throughout the country to enable people to discuss various regulations and their effect. I do not know whether he envisages such a public meeting in every area of the country. He nods enthusiastically. Therefore I assume that throughout the country—

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, it is called democracy.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stoddart says that that is called democracy. However, the picture I have of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, is of public meetings being arranged for most of the year, throughout most of the country, at which regulations such as the Dairy Products Hygiene Regulations would be discussed. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington, and Lord Taverne, that this process would lead to most of the civil servants and most of the Government indulging in a huge consultation process, the effect of which would be to place a very much larger burden on both business and the Government than any regulations produced by the European Union.

We believe that we have sensible arrangements in place which permit a proper giving of information before legislation is passed. That is only right and proper. We believe that the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, are not thoroughly thought out; they would place much too heavy a burden on Ministers, civil servants and the people consulted. I do not believe that anyone looking at them would think that they are sensible proposals for the giving or obtaining of information. For those reasons we cannot support the Bill.

Perhaps I may deal with a number of the specific points that have been raised in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, asked me specifically—and very kindly he said he would restrict himself to one question—to what extent we consult with interested parties, in particular with business. The guidance on the regulatory impact assessments which apply to Community legislation requires departments to consult with interested parties, including with small firms and their representatives in particular. I hope that answers the noble Lord's specific question.

The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, asked specific questions about the figures on water quality expenditure and related issues. Unfortunately I do not have those figures at my fingertips. Perhaps I may deal with the matter by way of writing to the noble Lord.

So far as concerns compliance information, the Commission publishes its reports annually, which include compliance and infraction information. The Government have not themselves examined compliance by other member states. However, a study prepared in 1994 considered compliance by other nations. I believe that it is available in the Library of the House.

The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred to the volume of regulations coming from Europe. It is perhaps not without interest that the total number of Commission proposals at the end of 1998 was the lowest since 1990 at least. In the 12 months to the end of November 1998, the Commission presented only 34 proposals for new legislation.

It is perhaps worth mentioning that business and the UK Government have been actively supporting the pilot business test panel, which consults directly with business in participating member states on proposals for legislation. We hope that a successful pilot such as that will help give a broader picture of the effects of legislation.

The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred to the "steam boiler" position. Again I am not in a position to provide an answer today. Perhaps I may write to him with the answer.

For the reasons I have given, the Government cannot support the Bill.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, when he comes to answer the questions about the water costs, will he put a copy in the Library? I am, of course, aware of the study which took place in 1994—I was a member of your Lordships' Select Committee at the time—and we found that it was entirely inconclusive. Not only did we not have the faintest idea what any other country was doing at the time, but the Commission refused to answer the British Government. I do not know whether the new Government's charm offensive in Brussels has been so successful as to encourage the Commission perhaps to give an answer about what other countries are up to with these incredibly expensive water directives.

If the Government are to resist this worthy Bill, can they explain why they continue to resist sponsoring an objective cost benefit analysis of our membership of the Treaty of Rome?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, as to the first point, of course I will place the answer in the Library. As to the second point, Members can read the report for themselves and form a judgment as to what its effect would be. As to the third point, the idea of a cost benefit analysis would lead to such contention that it would be extremely difficult to produce something that would command widespread support.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, a 1994 report is a 1994 report; it is therefore completely out of date. Most of the expenditure we are contemplating under the water directives will take place after that date. Can we not find out what the other countries are doing? If we do not know the scale and effect of these directives they fall under Article 5 of the Treaty of Rome, as amended by Amsterdam; and if the European Union has not put out a cost benefit analysis on all these water directives, it falls under what used to be Article 130R. So we need not carry out these wretched things if we do not want to.

Lord Willoughby de Broke

My Lords, I am most grateful for the contributions of all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. Perhaps I may deal with one or two of the points that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, and the Minister made the point that it would be impractical to ask businesses, the consultees, to provide the costs; that it would be too onerous for them. As my noble friend Lord Trenchard made quite clear, individual businesses are only too conscious of the extra costs involved if a regulation is anti their business. They will know how damaging the regulation is and have the answers ready for the consultation process that I hope will be pursued. I think businesses would welcome it rather than dislike it if they were required to provide figures for the Government. So that is a non-point.

I was very impressed by the foresight of my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch in bringing the condom directive with him. Being a Friday, it is probably something for the weekend. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, referred to an error or a failing in my Bill. I hope that we can amend it. We should, of course, have time to debate the impact statements when they are produced in Parliament. We will have the opportunity to amend that when we come to the Committee stage. I will have to take advice as to whether Clause 3 should include secondary legislation.

I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, did not think that I talked as much sense in my Bill as I thought he talked sense in his speech in the genetically modified crops debate; I very much agree with what he said then.

Despite the opposition of the Government, which I quite understand—they do not want to do any more work or expose the shortcomings in some of the legislation they have pushed through under European directives and regulations—the Bill is worth while. I believe that such shortcomings should be exposed, as do many businesses, particularly small ones.

I repeat my thanks to all noble Lords and to the Minister for the courtesy with which he replied. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.