Legislative and Regulatory Reform (Regulatory Functions) (Amendment) Order 2009

My Lords, I am not sure that I have the answers to all the questions, but I shall address those to which I do have answers. The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, asked about the exclusion of the traffic commissioners’ judicial functions. The 2006 Act specifically excludes from the definition of regulatory function, ""any function of conducting criminal or civil proceedings"," which means that, to the extent that quasi-judicial bodies are carrying out any function of conducting criminal or civil proceedings, such a function is excluded from the scope of the code. It is not the Government’s intention to go beyond the specific language used in the Act. I am looking for inspiration from behind me for an explanation as to why, according to the British Chambers of Commerce, the regulatory burdens barometer is moving towards stormy rather than fair weather. The UK now has the best ranked business environment in Europe and the fifth best in the world, according to the World Bank’s "Ease of Doing Business" index, which analyses the regulatory environment of 183 countries. The Government have delivered more than £2 billion in annual net savings by cutting out-of-date and unnecessary paperwork for businesses. That is £5 million a day, every day. This is on track to meet the target of a 25 per cent cut and is expected to deliver £3.4 billion in savings. As to the point about the British Chambers of Commerce, it is a question of the methodology that it uses. There is another phrase in my brief but I cannot decode it; I think that I have some cryptographers working behind me. The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, talked about the one-off costs per regulator. Those one-off costs are across the country, apparently, which I think answers another question. A further point was made about the impact on SMEs. My understanding is that this will be beneficial regardless of the size of the business in reducing the regulatory burden. I can think of one area that I am sure impacts on most of us, which is to get it right when trying to open and close bank accounts and the amount of evidence that you are required to produce. There is certainly potential in that area. I hope that I am right in saying that the size of the business should not have anything to do with it. The aim and intention is at one with the Hampton review; the recommendations are exactly the same. With regard to the point about the British Chambers of Commerce, although we agree with the methodology, we think that the figures that we have quoted about the savings are reliable, so we may have to agree to disagree on this. If I have not said it already, we have set a new and ambitious target to cut the ongoing costs of regulation by a further £6.5 billion over the next five years. I thank noble Lords for their consideration of this draft instrument. I emphasise that its aim is to ensure that national and local regulators apply a risk-based and targeted approach to regulation so as to improve outcomes and minimise burdens on businesses. Many UK regulators are already working within the statutory framework provided by the Regulators’ Compliance Code and to the principles of good regulation. This instrument will ensure that more and more regulators operate within the same framework. This is important because business, especially small businesses, needs an environment where regulation is effective and bureaucracy is minimised. In the current economic climate, I am sure that noble Lords would agree that this is more important than ever. It is also important because we can protect the environment, reduce accidents, protect workers and thus maintain an efficient and competitive economy only if we have appropriate and good-quality regulation that is properly and fairly enforced. This instrument will bring real benefits to many groups: to regulators, because they will be able to target their resources more effectively; to business, because the costs of regulation will fall; to society, because rogue operators will be more effectively targeted and tackled; and to the economy, because removing burdens on business will enable the UK to retain its competitive edge in the global economy. On that note, I ask the Committee to approve the Motion. Motion agreed.