The heavy, heavy "burden" of regulation
The Companies Bill is currently going thorugh its Commons stages. I was struck by a point that Larry Elliot made in his column in yesterday's Guardian. In particular, this part caught my eye:
“A firm can expect a visit from Revenue and Customs once every 330 years on average and to be found breaking the law once a millennium.”
330 years. And yet still the business sector complains about red tape – persuading Brown to scrap the Operating and Financial Review (OFR) last November and is still campaigning to reduce the “burden” of regulation in the Companies Bill.
Not everything is going their way: this morning the Government conceded on an amendment tabled by Jon Trickett covering the issue of bringing a company's supply chain within the remit of the Bill - so responsibility cannot be sloughed off onto subcontractors, subsidiaries or suppliers. Great news, but the government is still opposing the other two amendments - on the content of the Business Review which seeks to reinstate important elements of the scrapped OFR by making reporting a director's duty - so lodging responsibility at the highest level of a company and on mandatory reporting standards - to create a level playing field.
If your MP is not already backing the amendments, contact them and ask them to do so. This is not a heavy burden, just asking companies to recognise their responsibilities.
Comments
I did write my MP a brief email about this. But he is an arch Tory - a good friend of David Cameron.
So, I did initially wonder whether to even bother drawing their attention to Jon Trickett's Bill. I thought that all they'd say is that business is already buckling under regulation.
Well, I did write an email ... and guess what? I got a letter saying that British companies keep high standards in business. Rather than introducing more legislation, they should be left to self-regulate themselves. (After all, they're trustable, are't they? They're British). His thesis was that businesses were already buckling under regulation.
I think I must be developing telepathy.
Interesting to see how overburdened companies aren't. If they're so rarely monitoried, prosecuted and held to account, what is their problem?
In these days of globalisation, we're all expected to constantly improve, and indeed, achieve more with less (resources and remuneration). Why shouldn't the captains of industry be expected to perform to newer, sharper rules and standards? It might help make their fat cat salaries less of an insult to ordinary working people.
Posted by: Lilian E-Doufani | October 18, 2006 02:56 PM