Deregulation Bill — House of Lords, 2015-02-11
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Denis Tunnicliffe (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the Labour Party, despite rumours put about by the Benches opposite, is pro business. We see business as central to our society: it is essential, and thriving industry is good for us. We are also pro growth. We might have slightly different views about its distribution: we think that growth should go to the many as well as to the few. That would have been a point of difference until the recent conversion of David Cameron to a belief that firms should be paying their staff more. This we applaud, and therefore we so far have consensus. Because we are pro business and pro growth, we support the generality of Clauses 88 and 89, but with reservations. I was almost talked out of supporting the two clauses by the Minister, who pointed out that the 2006 Act apparently does what these two clauses do anyway. Life might have been easier if the Government had not brought forward these clauses at all However, just as we are pro business and pro growth, we are pro good regulation. Once again, I am absolutely delighted that we are not alone in this. Oliver Letwin, the Minister of State for Policy, indicated at the beginning of this Bill in the other place that he, too, was in favour of good regulation. Good regulation protects the citizen from the overly powerful, be it overly powerful commercial interests, the state or other large bodies. It protects consumers, workers, patients, the old and those with disabilities, while other regulatory bodies protect the environment, the built environment and many other areas of our lives. The challenge is to create a balance between legislation that is pro growth on the one hand and protects the citizen on the other. We think that Clauses 88 and 89—and I think Clause 90 as well—go too far, and that is why we are moving Amendment 44A Just stand back for a second and see how these clauses are going to promote growth, and look at the guidance material that we have already received—and discussed at some length in Committee. They divide into two areas. A great deal was said about the bureaucracy of regulation, the same form coming twice and different inspectors coming on different days. The essence of much of the illustration of the value of these two clauses was about regulators being much more efficient at bureaucracy, more sensitive to the needs of business and much more business-friendly. We could not agree more. It is absolutely sound that that should be true The other potential for the two clauses is to have an impact on protection itself and actually diminish it. We are very concerned about that. We discussed this at some length in Committee, and the Minister very kindly arranged a number of meetings. We thank him for doing that. Those meetings were very much the same. They were very much the curate’s egg—good in parts. They almost always started with the Minister present stating fairly flatly that these clauses were not meant to diminish protection. The Minister would say that they did not have an impact on safety. Then, towards the end of the meeting, the Minister would float back into perhaps that being the area where they could impact At the end of this, we had two letters, including a very useful letter from the HSE. I shall not quote it at any length, but the HSE is a much derided body. It is an excellent organisation that has matured greatly under the chairmanship of Judith Hackitt. In many ways, its maturity is reflected in the letter. Essentially, the HSE does not say that it does not need the provision, but it is sort of saying that in practical terms it will not make a difference to protection because the essence of the 1974 Act—one of the best pieces of legislation around, which has survived to this day largely unamended—is that it had a sense of proportionality about it. It said, "so far as reasonably practicable" We were very satisfied with that letter Then—not exactly sequentially—the Minister wrote to us to assure us. His letter had more of the history of British Raj about it, almost: "On one hand", and then "On the other". Early in the letter, he says: "I can assure you that the duty will complement existing duties and will not override or reduce the protection of the public" I had a little trouble with "complement". If you look it up, it seems to mean "add to" or even perhaps "enhance", but where in the Bill is it clear that the duty will not override or reduce the protection of the public? It is clear in his assurance in this letter, but it is not clear in the Bill. This is where in the meetings we had the same sense of floating away. The letter states that: "This duty sits alongside"—so one is now having words of equal weight— "any other factors that a regulator must consider … As experts in their relevant areas, it is the regulators themselves who are best placed to decide how much weight it is appropriate to afford to the desirability of economic growth in the relevant circumstances; in order that economic growth is considered whilst public protections are maintained. Indeed, it would not be appropriate for Government to dictate how growth should rank in relation to other factors which regulators also need to consider" We do not agree. It is appropriate for government and this House to give clear guidance in the Bill about how the growth duty ranks with the other duties of the regulators involved Once again in this balanced approach we get to where he says: "I might also add that if a regulator has had regard to, and considered growth, and can justify its decision, then a business cannot expect to successfully challenge that decision, nor can it use the duty to escape legitimate compliance costs" One of the ways to understand a sentence like that is to reverse it. It would then read: "I might also add that if the regulator has not had regard to and not considered growth and cannot justify its decision, a business could expect to successfully challenge that decision and could use the duty to escape legitimate costs". In other words, each of the three conditions—"have regard to", "consider growth" and "justify"—have to be met for the challenge not to be made. Clearly, the person who drafted this letter envisaged that challenges could be made, and those were the three conditions that had to be met Why am I so concerned with what might seem like a nuance? The whole problem with regulation is that, frequently, balance is achieved very much in the matter of the nuance. I come from a very regulated back- ground—originally aviation, then railways, then nuclear, and so on. In a high-hazard background you sit down and consider killing people and how much you are going to spend to avoid that, to mitigate that risk. Those are very difficult decisions, but they are taken. When you edge or nuance protection, ultimately you are talking about harm and about people getting killed. I worked in an industry where, sadly, we killed people every year. You cannot carry 800,000 passengers a year without killing some of them. We abandoned the whole idea that it was just an accident; we took the view that every death was our responsibility. That meant that every death was analysed so we could establish how much we could have spent or sensibly should have spent to mitigate that death Those are the sorts of decisions small and big companies take. We know that they take those decisions, perhaps most famously from the BP Texas City explosion in 2005. The examination of that event uncovered that BP head office had demanded cuts in costs. There was no mitigation on safety and no qualification; cuts in cost had to be made. Sadly, 15 people died in that event. We know that BP did not learn its lesson, because the Gulf of Mexico spillage happened five years later, in 2010 What, then, is our remedy to avoid this now? It is the amendment to which I speak: "Section 88 shall only apply to a person exercising a regulatory function"— that is the growth duty— "in so far as it is consistent with the proper exercise of their existing regulatory functions" That makes it clear that the protection—the balance—in the present regulatory structure should be unaltered. It makes it clear that in the nine areas which we have talked about, particularly the bureaucratic areas, let us get rid of the bureaucracy—yes, great—and if you look at the impact assessment, you will see that that is where virtually all the money is. However, it protects us from any erosion of the protection of the current regulatory regime My nuance may be unfounded—it may be that all firms take their safety and other protection responsibilities seriously. However, sadly, I have seen too much evidence of the opposite. I have been in rooms where people have said, "Compliance with this regulation is too expensive. How can we avoid it or reduce it?". We have to maintain the present regulatory balance while introducing the growth concept. We want noble Lords to support this amendment to protect citizens from the bad guys, which of course will leave a level playing field for the good guys.