---

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Just as the precise contents of the book to which my hon. Friend referred earlier had slipped my mind, it has slipped his mind that I included many of the points that he has just made in my speech on the Budget. I entirely agree with him about the OECD’s assessment. I have had considerable affection for that body for several years because one of my cousins, Stephen Marris, was its chief economist. He was preceded by my Canadian compatriot, Sylvia Ostry. Members will be relieved to hear that I have reached No. 32 in the list of 69 alleged burdens on business: the Flexible Working (Procedural Requirements) Regulations 2002. Procedural requirements might be over-egging things a bit, but not flexible working. Members on both sides of the House would support that. Indeed, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet prayed it in aid for ““mums at home”” in respect of the home computing initiative, so I hope that we can all agree on those regulations. The Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002 might be controversial but they sound good to me. The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002 may be over-regulation; they may be a burden on business by stopping a retailer ripping us off as consumers or ripping off our constituents, but they sound pretty good to me. Another one, which is close to my heart as a former trade union employment solicitor, is the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (Amendment) Regulations 1988—some people call it COSHH, using the capitals—which was introduced pursuant to a European Union directive. There may be an argument that the Animal By-Products Regulations 2003 represent over-regulation, because we had some previous animal regulations, to which I referred, but I cannot quite put my finger on. I concede that that is possibly over-regulation. The list then refers to regulating insurance mediation—not even regulations.