Deregulation Bill

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

44A: Clause 89, page 71, line 3, at end insert—
“( ) Section 88 shall only apply to a person exercising a regulatory function in so far as it is consistent with the proper exercise of their existing regulatory functions.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that that gives the noble Lord sufficient assurance to be willing to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for explaining how the point we are making has a wider application, particularly as regards a chilling effect. Some of these regulators are quite small, some have very tight budgets and some may face very large organisations, particularly in the planning world. The chilling effect on behaviour takes place over time.

I respect the experience of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, in this field—it is interesting that we have ended up with two regulators and a regulatee in this debate—but I am afraid that I do not share his view. The duty we are discussing may not cut across others but certainly has the potential to be considered on an equal footing. He quoted the draft guidance, which is now over a year old. The Government have not thought fit to revise it; I wish that they had. I do not find the draft guidance clear. Indeed, it is a wonderful topic to debate as, rather like the works of Karl Marx, you can find anything to justify anything. It contains as many words of assurance—which the noble Earl found—as of discomfort, which I found. The noble Earl mentioned a figure of £2 billion, which I believe the department subsequently withdrew. I believe that the £2 billion represents the gross sum of the regulatory bodies but does not cover just their regulatory work. I believe that a figure emerged that was half that sum.

The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in many ways reflected what was said in various meetings. I am not accusing the Government of a conspiracy here. I do not think that the Government want to roar through the countryside, throwing out regulation all over the place by means of this clause and I am very persuaded by the bureaucracy point, which was well made in the regulations and the supporting documentation. However, the issue of protection worries me. If noble Lords do not agree with my amendment, they are implying that the exercise of the function we are discussing could be inconsistent with the proper exercise of the existing regulatory functions. For that reason, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenway (CB)]

My Lords, I declined to follow the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, down this route at Second Reading because I wanted to talk about other things and, unfortunately, when it was his turn to speak on this clause in Committee, I was chairing the All-Party Parliamentary Maritime and Ports Group upstairs. This is the first time that I have had a chance to speak on this subject and it looks as though I am third time unlucky, because I have been beaten by the clock as well, so I will be very brief.

The noble Lord, Lord Prescott, who did great things for British shipping in bringing in the tonnage tax when he was Secretary of State, speaks with enormous passion on this subject as a former seafarer. I, like him, share this passion for the sea and ships, which I have had all my life. However, in this instance my passion has been tempered by rational thought. We are looking here at something comparatively simple. This duty that is to be removed is the duty to reopen a maritime inquiry where new and important evidence has been discovered. In the case of the “Derbyshire”, which the noble Lord mentioned, there is no question at all that a Secretary of State would reopen an inquiry. However, there are occasions where it may not be such a good idea. After all, let us not forget that such inquiries cost £6 million to £8 million. They tie up busy people such as lawyers and maritime experts for quite a considerable time. In the fiscal circumstances in which the country still finds itself, if we can save any money then we should look at that quite seriously.

I will not go into the safety aspect because safety is in some ways an entirely different matter. Thankfully, the need to reopen these inquiries has happened on only three or four occasions. The need has got less since the Marine Accident Investigation Branch was set up in 1989. It has reduced the need for these inquiries. The whole system of looking into maritime affairs has been changing quite rapidly over the last 20 or 30 years. We have a different system in place and, in my opinion, I feel very happy that Clause 41 should remain part of the Bill.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, it is my responsibility to respond for the Opposition Front Bench on this issue. In order to save time, I carefully studied the debate in Committee. Having listened to my noble friend Lord Prescott, we continue to support his position.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, for his enormous patience here this evening. He had to listen to several debates on parking before we came to his issue. I think that the Minister who should have responded to him might have been a woman—