---

Government Regulation

We have heard Labour Members boast about the 2 million new jobs that have been created since 1997, and a number of Conservative Members have pointed out that many of those jobs were in the public sector. However, we should acknowledge that some of those jobs are in the private sector. Indeed, I come from one of the growth areas in the private sector: a few weeks ago, I worked as a lawyer specialising in financial services regulation, which is a booming part of the economy because of the ever-increasing rules and regulations applied by the Financial Services Authority. Even quite large and sophisticated financial services firms require assistance in dealing with the authorised persons regime, with money laundering, as we heard earlier, and with the whole application process—a welter and gamut of areas that require detailed technical assistance. I am afraid that that is not untypical and that the same thing could be said of a number of other parts of the economy. Let us take the FSA as an example. A lot of the rhetoric that comes from the FSA is highly encouraging and welcome. It talks about a risk-based, principle-based approach, which is largely welcomed in the industry. However, what we often get with regulators and, I suspect, with the Government is that much of the rhetoric and intent is welcome, but does not work out in reality. Although the talk at senior level is of a risk-based approach, when it comes to transmitting that in practice, what we get is a much more rigid adherence to detailed rules—a box-ticking approach. That is what a lot of the industry finds. I know from personal experience and from a study carried out by the Centre for Policy Studies that such things are common. It is no surprise, therefore, that even the Prime Minister recognises some of the difficulties with this specific issue. He says that there is"““something is seriously awry . . . when the Financial Services Authority . . . is seen as hugely inhibiting of efficient business by perfectly respectable companies that have never defrauded anyone””." Of course, that contrasts with the Chancellor’s approach when he says that the FSA is a world-leading example of how to regulate financial services, but perhaps I shall leave that aside for a moment. I quoted the speech that the Prime Minister gave to the Institute for Public Policy Research on 26 May. I have read through it, and it is a reasonable and impressive speech, but it contrasts with the Minister’s speech in which he painted a picture of a world where regulation was not a problem in business, in the public services or in the voluntary services. Everything seemed to be absolutely fine. However, the Prime Minister in referring to ““intrusive regulation”” said:"““So what to do? First, recognise the problem.””" I should have thought that this evening provided an ideal opportunity for Labour Members to recognise the problem, but there is no sign of them doing so whatsoever. It is also worth pointing out that the Minister quoted a couple of senior Conservatives who, after leaving government, spoke about the difficulties of deregulation. It appears that the Prime Minister is even more advanced, because he has not yet left the Government, but already recognises the Government’s difficulty in deregulating. I shall move on to other areas. I referred to financial services and, of course, business regulation is a key aspect, but let us also consider local government. My constituency faces a specific health and safety problem with monuments in cemeteries. There is a legitimate health and safety issue with such monuments because some tragic incidents have occurred in recent years. However, a disproportionate approach appears to be applied by the Health and Safety Executive in requiring that every monument, even if only 18 in or 2 ft above the ground, must be rigorously tested and removed. That causes a great deal of concern for my constituents and a degree of sensitivity. I also wish to touch briefly on the voluntary sector, which has not been referred to in the debate. I have spoken to charities in my constituency that find that they are losing volunteers because of the increased burden of bureaucracy. Volunteers are driven away by having to carry out risk assessments, the training requirements and the delays in charities being able to make use of them because of those requirements. The Government must recognise a problem in this country with regulation. A remote Government set rules but, by the time they are transmitted, they cause enormous difficulties—whether that be in our public services, our voluntary sector or in business.