Proceeding contribution from Jim Murphy (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 4 July 2005. It occurred during Opposition day on Government Regulation.
Government Regulation
We have had a timely and interesting debate. Among other things, we heard about rabbit holes, the Warren commission, grassy knolls and even nits in the Members’ Changing Room, although I have not yet seen those. We also had contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) and for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), and the hon. Members for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), for Braintree (Mr. Newmark), for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers) and for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke). I agree with the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire more than most, if only because he quoted the Prime Minister. One tip I was given this evening for my first winding-up speech was always to agree with the Prime Minister when he is quoted. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield said that we need to get the balance of regulation right in terms of laudable aim and risk. She talked with great experience from her life before being elected to this place. My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire brought his business experience to the debate when he stressed the need for us to support small businesses. He asked about providing one source of information in a one-stop shop for small businesses. I am delighted to remind him that the Department of Trade and Industry website has a specific one-pager on compliance for small businesses. I shall give him that address. It is one aspect of what we are undertaking. Sole traders need one form to set up. Private companies need five. That may be too much, but 20 licences, certificates and registrations were needed to start a business in the 1990s. We have also introduced 400 deregulatory measures, cut small companies’ corporation tax and extended research and development tax credit, providing £400 million to businesses. We also heard an interesting speech from the hon. Member for Braintree, who clearly has strong and detailed opinions on regulatory impact assessments. He will have the opportunity to raise those specific points when we discuss various Bills in the Chamber and in Committee. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk, in his usual passionate and unique way, offered generous praise to the former Chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee. I also heard him offer sedentary support to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) in his possible leadership challenge. Perhaps new hon. Members do not know that the hon. Gentleman served for six years as a Parliamentary Private Secretary to the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), who has his hat in and out of the ring. I look forward to that conversation on his backing for the right hon. Member for Wokingham. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet has large footsteps to follow in the shape of Sir Sydney Chapman, who had a strong reputation and was respected by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. She and others talked about the need for risk-based assessment as we regulate. They were correct in doing so. We are also committed to reducing the number of regulators who interact with business from 31 to seven, to reducing the number of inspectorates that interact with public services from 11 to four, and to introducing not one but two deregulation Bills. We are determined to make progress in reducing the number of inspections of good councils and schools, strong police forces and other bodies. We have had an interesting debate. Better regulation is crucial if the UK economy is to meet the challenges of established economies in the US, Japan and elsewhere. It is also crucial if we are to continue to be one of the most successful economies in Europe—if not the most successful—if we are to remain the most stable economy in the G8 and if we are to position our economy strategically so that we can meet the challenges of the coming economic age and the massive global challenge posed by India and China. We will never compete with India and China if we accept the Opposition’s rhetoric about low-cost employment. Our competitive edge will depend on our having the best skilled work force, and on basic innovation and world-class research. Better regulation will play an important part in achieving that. Turning to other contributions, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) highlighted the Liberal Democrats’ priorities, as we heard about support for a national scheme of dog licensing from a party that opposed the national minimum wage.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 436 c131-2
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Costs Business Competition Bureaucracy Hospitals Inspections EU law Local government Schools Regulation Sunset clauses
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-22 00:28:46 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_255762
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_255762
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_255762