Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 21 May 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [Lords].


Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [Lords]

That is a good point with which we agree, and which was picked up by the CBI, which has said that there"““should be the opportunity for independent review before a penalty notice is issued.””" The British Retail Consortium regards the sanctions as ““unacceptable””, while the Forum of Private Business, in its response to the pre-legislative consultation, attacked the Government for trying to present the measure as a ““simplification”” and said that it regarded this part of the Bill as a ““deal-breaker””. Interestingly, the BRC also condemns the introduction of administrative penalties, believing that they would undermine the risk-based approach to regulation. If enforcement simply means handing out the equivalent of parking fines, how will that encourage better regulatory practice? What is clear is that this part of the Bill could put small businesses at a significant disadvantage yet again. Whereas medium and larger businesses will be quite able to pursue the tribunal and appeals processes, most small firms will have neither the time nor the wherewithal. Ordinary people such as owners of small shops, farmers and drivers of vehicles are likely to feel compelled just to pay up and get on with trying to run their businesses and earn a living, rather than allowing their time to be taken up with such procedures. If we get these measures wrong, they could be deeply resented by many thousands of small businesses and sole traders across the country. Part 4 creates a power allowing Ministers to require regulators not to impose or maintain unnecessary regulatory burdens. It would seem to be well intentioned, but I have been made aware of concerns expressed by the National Consumer Council, not least that there is a potential for this explicit and overriding measure to restrain the ability of regulators to protect consumers. We shall seek to explore that further in Committee. The stated aims of Ministers are welcome, but we have heard all this before, and we remain to be convinced that the Bill will achieve those aims in its current form. We have other fears as well. We heard today of the Government's announcement of their intentions in relation to the Temporary and Agency Workers (Equal Treatment) Bill, which was the result of what I would describe as a classic ““beer and sandwiches in Downing street”” operation. I have still not seen the proposals, apart from what the papers have said, and I have since discovered that the same applies to many organisations. Given that the CBI has said that the regulation could cost British industry up to 250,000 jobs, I consider the absence of a ministerial statement and the Minister's failure to mention the matter during the debate to be cause for grave concern.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
476 c341-2 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Business Civil proceedings Local government Small businesses Regulation Unfair practices Local Better Regulation Office
Legislation
Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill (HL) 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk