I am grateful to the Association of Convenience Stores for giving me this opportunity to explain the Government’s position on regulation to so many key players in the convenience store sector. I am also grateful to the Association for the close eye it keeps on the Government’s regulatory programme. Informed scrutiny of our proposals is always welcome.

Let me start by stating the obvious. Good regulation is all about balance – balancing the needs of business, consumers and employees. The Government would prefer not to regulate but, when we must, we want regulation that promotes business competitiveness while at the same time protecting employees and giving a fair deal to consumers. Our approach to regulatory control aims to ensure that we get this balance right.

I believe it is a mistake to think that Government and business are somehow on different sides of the fence when it comes to regulation.

Since my Ministerial appointment, I have spent time meeting with businesses of different sizes and from different regions and industrial sectors, hearing what they have to say about regulation. In my experience, businesses do not want to repeal health and safety or employment laws, they don’t want to pay sweatshop wages, they don’t want to rip customers off, they don’t want to put children up chimneys or down mines. What they do want are fair, proportionate regulations. Regulations that don’t impose unnecessary or excessive bureaucratic burdens.

The Government wants the same thing. We recognise that business is the engine of the economy. It is business - not Government - that creates jobs and wealth for the nation. But government has a responsibility to business: To create a stable economic environment; a favourable tax regime; a high standard of education and skills; effective competition. We also have a responsibility to regulate intelligently and to ensure that our smaller businesses get the support they need. They are the future of our economy. That means providing economic stability, introducing fiscal measures which encourage enterprise and investment, promoting fair competition, investing in skills, encouraging innovation and removing barriers to finance. That is why we are determined to make sure that the achievement of our policy objectives imposes the least possible burden on business.

But let’s not forget that we were elected on the strength of a number of clear manifesto commitments. We are proud to have guaranteed working people and their families decent pay, holiday entitlements and a reasonable working week.

And thanks to initiatives like the national Minimum Wage and Working Families Tax Credit, a typical mum now has up to £70 extra in her weekly household budget.

But these measures don’t just benefit employees, they benefit business as well. There is a growing body of evidence that family-friendly policies lead to a more committed and motivated workforce and to better recruitment and retention of staff.

However, our commitment to providing basic rights and protection and to getting a fair deal for consumers does not mean that we are more inclined to regulate than previous administrations. We are not.

I know this is contrary to what some of you feel or may have read and I am pleased to have the chance to set the record straight.

The annual number of Statutory Instruments is often reported as shocking evidence of this Government’s enthusiasm for regulation. In fact the number of new Statutory Instruments remains pretty much the same – year in, year out. They include deregulation orders and market opening measures. But the truth is the vast majority have no impact at all on business and deal with purely routine matters. For example, a quick look at the first few Statutory Instruments this year shows that they were concerned with things like parking in Sefton, flight paths in Canada, trams in Croydon, slip roads on the A40 and the control of Egyptian potatoes.

The number of Acts of Parliament tends to follow a cycle and there is no upward trend there either. These are the facts.

The important thing, however, is not the quantity of regulation but its quality. We, as much as you, want to achieve the maximum benefits of regulation with the minimum cost to business.

We, as much as you, are determined to get rid of unnecessary and inappropriate legislation. Another of my Ministerial responsibilities is taking forward the Regulatory Reform Bill. The Bill will extend the scope of the current deregulation order-making powers and will give us the opportunity to fast track the process of reducing burdens and scrapping outdated legislation. The Bill was published in draft a couple of weeks ago and will be introduced as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

Where regulation is absolutely necessary, we try to make sure its implementation imposes the least possible burden on business.

We are committed to consulting fully with business about our policy proposals. But I know that some Departments have been criticised by business for the way consultation exercises have been handled and for not adhering to our own best practice guidelines. We are, at the moment, studying the recommendations of the Better Regulation Task Force to see how we can strengthen our procedures to make consultation more business-friendly.

Of course, we want to get regulation right first time. But if we get it wrong, we act quickly and decisively to put it right.

Business told us it didn’t like all the record-keeping for the Working Time Regulations. We looked again and were able to remove a lot of it without compromising our objective of ensuring a sensible working week. Businesses and employees were both winners.

Our approach to implementation is realistic and pragmatic. We always try to achieve our goals with the minimum impact on business. The administrative costs of the Minimum Wage are tiny and we are now doing all we can to bring in the Part-time Work Directive in a way which introduces some important rights and yet is sensitive to business concerns.

I made clear earlier my belief that business and Government are on the same side in the battle against red tape. But we must not confuse red tape with the costs of paying fair wages and providing workers with basic rights and other deserved benefits.

This Government will not renege on its commitment to regulate for these fundamental minimum standards. What we will do is make sure that any burden they impose is as small as possible.

It is already the case that we refuse to introduce regulations unless all the alternative options have been thoroughly considered and their full impact has been properly assessed, especially the impact on small businesses.

This isn’t just going through the motions. Business has a chance to comment on that assessment and we listen to what you have to say. You took issue with the proposal to date-stamp tobacco products. We listened. And Customs & Excise dropped the proposal.

I know you have concerns about the Climate Change Levy and I’m sure you will have views on the Home Office White Paper on liquor licensing. We will listen to you again.

Last November, we announced new arrangements to galvanise our approach to regulatory control.

FirstlyFirstly, each Department appointed a Minister with direct responsibility for regulatory reform.

Back to speeches homepage