LORD JONES OF BIRMINGHAM AND MR ANDREW CAHN

16 JULY 2007

  Q40  Chairman: These are good lawyer's arguments. It is something Michael Howard was so good at but what this means is that you have not changed your views but you are ceasing to express them in public.

  Lord Jones of Birmingham: I have just told you; my job is to focus on trade and industry.

  Q41  Chairman: No, no, no, no, it is not, because you will be challenged on issue after issue after issue affecting UK competitiveness in foreign markets and your old views will be thrown back at you. You are not just banging the drum; you will have to defend government policy.

  Lord Jones of Birmingham: One thing I will do, as I get those are areas of disquiet and annoyance and worry, I will relay them to the Government in private, yes.

  Chairman: Let us look at one of those. Lindsay Hoyle again. Sorry, I interrupted.

  Q42  Mr Hoyle: Can I just take you on to what is a major plank of the Government, the Warwick agreement. Do you support the Warwick agreement and what are your views?

  Lord Jones of Birmingham: As far as the success of this country at the moment economically and employment-wise is concerned, one of the really great bullets in the barrel we have, one of the great assets of this country, is its flexible labour market. If you ask any inward investor, up there, speaking the global language of business, being in the right time zone, actually having moved quite happily really to a restructured economy, value-added, innovation, manufacturing and services, this flexible labour market has been one of the key planks to it. Ask any inward investor. Our low unemployment and our flexible labour market is not a coincidence. These two go together. Countries in the developed world that have rigid labour markets, more employment regulation, actually have high levels of unemployment: France, Germany. Do I believe that we have had enough employment regulation now? If we had any more and it diminished potential investors' wish to come here, then I would say the facts speak for themselves.

  Q43  Mr Hoyle: Part of what we have been listening to about Warwick is of course fears about worker's rights but it is also about government procurement, and we ought to be using government procurement to support British jobs, which I am absolutely committed to, and I feel there has not been the link between government procurement and supporting British jobs. A quick example is army uniforms, manufactured, good textile, British industry, yet suddenly ended up as a contract to a Chinese company that were using workers ... Some may have been ... No recognized factories. In fact, they were state-owned factories in China that now produce British army uniforms. I think that is absolutely absurd. I do not know your views are.

  Lord Jones of Birmingham: It is a very difficult line—and I am sure you would agree with me on this—which is that government has a duty to spend its taxpayers' money very wisely and if you get to the point where something that the government can procure is significantly cheaper somewhere else, provided that somewhere else—and in this respect I know you did not go all the way, but you would have to make sure the factories were right, that the health and safety was right, that the environment and legislation was right, for obvious reasons—then there is a duty to the taxpayer to ensure that we get the best value for the money. On the other side of that, best value for money, in my view—it is not a view that I have seen exercised always in government, that is for sure—best value for money does not mean just balance the books this year; it also means, how do you use the art of procurement to develop the economy? In that respect, as the economy grows up the value-added chain, as it grows up the innovative chain, it is very important that where you can, within those bounds of giving good value for money for the taxpayer as a payer of what is going to happen, army uniforms or whatever, it is very important that you have in mind the longer term value for money as well as the short-term value for money. That has to be in the areas where value-added innovation means that there is something more to it than a commodity. Sewing a uniform is actually a commodity. Designing a uniform, using skilled people and investment in textile design, in the creative industries side of what we do really well and sell round the world, that is something where, frankly, we beat China. But the putting together of a uniform, a million of them, a thousand of them, that is all about price and nothing else, and it is very difficult to put up an argument as to why that should be done in Britain when it can be done for the benefit of the UK taxpayer, saving the money that can be spent on schools and hospitals, by doing that somewhere else in a cheaper economy. If, on the other hand, we were sending the whole thing over there, including the design of it and including the growth and development of the creative industries side of it, that would be a bigger issue.

  Mr Hoyle: Except that we are talking about infrared technology on camouflage, which is very specialist, and the specialist UK company that had been producing it unfortunately had to close because of this major contract shift, and it was done because of employment levels, where we know it was a state-owned company, where I do not believe health and safety came up to standard, and the fact that we are actually giving it to a Communist regime seems very odd to me, especially when we are giving away information on our own camouflage, to be produced by somebody we may end up having problems with in the future. I think it is absurd.

  Mr Clapham: Lord Jones, just a couple of questions. I apologise for my late entrance, which could not be helped because I was on an SI but I managed to get off that. When I came in, you were saying that you wanted to see things done differently and you mentioned, for example, the way in which the French and the Germans do things rather differently, but then at the same time you later talked about the regulations and the way in which that does to some degree impact on employment levels. This Committee has for the last decade tried to push the idea of doing things differently, taking a leaf out of the book of the Germans, the French and the Italians. What is it that you see the Germans, the French and the Italians doing differently that you think you can persuade British industry—

  Chairman: This is rather awkward for the Chair, I am afraid, because that takes us again to the mainstream of the UKTI section and the evidence which will come later. Can I bring you in a little later with that question?

  Q44  Mr Clapham: Could I ask my second question? My second question comes on the back of the discussion you have just had. The very fact that you are going to be going round the world, selling British industry, means that at the same time you have to send the signals back to British industry that we have to work together; all the stakeholders have to work together. The newspapers have reported certain statements that you have made previously with regards to trade unions. Will you be working positively with the trade unions and with the trade union leadership to bring about that welding together of the stakeholders in British industry to be able to produce competitive prices in order for you to sell British industrial goods around the world?

  Lord Jones of Birmingham: It is not about industry, is it? Industry to me conjures up ideas of factories; it conjures up ideas of yesterday. It is about value-added business, and that can be—very much so actually—two miles down the road, three miles down the road, at Canary Wharf. I see that as incredibly important business but it is not what you and I might think of as "industry". Manufacturing today, serious quality, value-added manufacturing— aerospace, automotive, pharmaceuticals, food—they are not the old connotations of working in a dirty factory. It does not go on any more. So my job actually is not to go and get hold of a manufactured good and flog it in Brazil. My job is to make sure that a potential buyer in Brazil is aware of the brand Britain, is aware of the fact that, notwithstanding what you often read in newspapers and, I have to say, hear from politicians now and again, we still make some of the most fabulous stuff on Earth actually. It is just different stuff. It is the value-added end. So the job is not about going round and saying "Isn't it wonderful, this bit of kit?" It is more about ensuring that the marketing of the brand is right. To pull that off, one of the things you have to do is constantly ensure that you are listening to all the stakeholders in an economy, for a start. It is not just unions or shareholders or managers. It is environmentalists, it is politicians, it is journalists. They play an enormous part in this. It is also overseas. It is the whole chain of British representation overseas. It is about buying into the brand of the United Kingdom. Part of that is trade unionism in the 21st century. This is a wonderful theatre in which I can actually dispel the canard that is constantly written about what I said. It was the CBI Scotland annual dinner. It was, I think, 2004, though I might be a year out, and I actually said that if trade unions do not get on the 21st century agenda of skilling people, equipping them for a globalised economy, and, rightly, ensuring that they have a quality pension to look forward to in their retirement, if they do not leave behind the old 20th-century issues that led to all the strikes and the turmoil and the political motivation, they will wither on the vine of irrelevance. That is actually the speech I gave. I never said unions are irrelevant. I never even said they are going to become irrelevant. I actually said that unless they get on page of the 21st century and a developed economy, they will be irrelevant. I am very glad to have that opportunity to tell you that, because to me—and you can see it happening. Learning reps in unions have been a fabulous success and I for one supported them when I was at the CBI, and I still do today. Fabulous success. The successful unions are the ones that do not do all the alarmist stuff and all the stuff in the press that makes inward investors go "Ugh!" They are the ones who actually say, "Let me work with you and actually show you why my ..." wherever, either geographical or sectoral location "is why you should be here and not in France or Germany or Italy or somewhere else." That to me is what I would call the partnership to which you refer.

  Q45  Chairman: That is a very healthy partnership you describe but only in September last year you described trade unions, implicitly all of them, as "politically motivated and selfish". Do you stand by those words?

  Lord Jones of Birmingham: Actually, if you really want to know what I did say, not what I was quoted as saying, because I remember it very well, I said—and I remember the interview.

  Q46  Chairman: It was not an interview. It is a speech made to the Institute of Directors on 13 September. I have the full text.

  Lord Jones of Birmingham: I can remember it very well because I actually said if they are people who are going on this 20th century agenda, they are politically motivated and they are selfish because they are not looking after the best interests of their own members.

  Q47  Chairman: It was a different speech. This says "I ask what gives trades unions, politically motivated and selfish, the right to deny choice to millions who can't afford to buy it?" You went on to say, "This Government is in the financial palm of the trades unions hand—the money they have paid for a place at the table of government makes paying for peerages, however wrong, mere pocket money and a couple of years ago this Labour Government actually gave £10 million of the taxpayers' money to a single vested interest—the unions—who funded their party to help them reform." That is a pretty trenchant criticism of the role of trade unions and the Government you are now a member of.

  Lord Jones of Birmingham: That was then and this is now.

  Q48  Chairman: I do not find that very credible.

  Lord Jones of Birmingham: I have just told you: that was then and this is now and I have a job to do.

  Q49  Chairman: So that was wrong?

  Lord Jones of Birmingham: That was then and this is now. I have a job to do. I would have thought you would put the interests of your country, so importantly in this day and age ... My job is to get trade and investment going round the world for this country.

  Chairman: I would have thought personal integrity counted for something too but never mind. There we are.

  Mr Binley: Can I welcome you. Can I say how delighted I am that there is somebody who knows a little bit about business in the higher echelons of government.

  Mr Bone: Hear, hear.

  Q50  Mr Binley: Can I say I am only sorry that we do not have somebody in the Cabinet who knows as much about business as you do. Can I say that Lord Jones of Birmingham is a pretty big title, Digby—sorry, Minister. Can I say that you are going to be called Lord Brum from now on, the Brummie boy made good. I do not mind that. I am concerned however as to whether you are a blues fan or whether you prefer claret. I have no doubt that that will emerge later on. I do want to ask you about corporate taxes because you have been a great fan of reducing corporate taxes. I have heard you speak many times and I have clapped with gusto. You are now in a situation where you can have some effect. Can I ask you whether you thought that the increase in corporate taxes for the most productive, creative and job-producing sector of British business, SMEs, was absolutely stupid and will you do something to change that?

  Lord Jones of Birmingham: Firstly, God is alive and well and keeping goal for Aston Villa. Secondly, one thing that is always forgotten by so many people when we talk about business, in whatever sector it is, is that 99.2% of private-sector employment in this country is done by SMEs.

  Q51  Mr Binley: I think it is a bit more. I think it is 99.8%.

  Lord Jones of Birmingham: It is an amazing statistic and something we all forget, and the stimulation of employment and wealth creation through the small business sector is hugely important. One thing I do intend to do is listen to their taxation issues, very important round the country, and of course, it is different in different sectors because you will get a small business in creative industries, where the lead time on certain things is huge; they probably need a bit more fiscal help than someone who, although very important, is buying and selling on a quick turnover, which will be a different type of fiscal approach that is needed. Do I intend internally in private to communicate those issues from all the different SME side of life and say to different ministers "This is what I learnt last week, this is what I was told last week"? Yes, I do. I really do. That is the job. Do I intend to do Treasury's job for them and start saying outwardly as opposed to inwardly, no way. That is the Treasury's job. It is not my job.

  Q52  Mr Binley: I understand that but you are telling me that you are going to say what a serious error increasing corporate tax by 16% over three years was for small business and how that impacts on UK PLC. You only have to look at Airbus to know that they employ 13,000 people directly, but have 135,000 people in the supply chain. Putting corporate tax on one level of industry and taking it on another is absolute nonsense and self-defeating. Will you be privately making that point as hard as you can?

  Lord Jones of Birmingham: If I get that point made to me quite forcefully by the small businesses of this country and, from your very forceful point, I guess I am going to, I can tell you right now that in private I shall make those points known to the Treasury. But what I cannot do is the Treasury's job for them because they are better at it than I am.

  Mr Binley: I understand that, but I have noted down your answer. I said I welcomed you and I am delighted with that answer. Let us move on to regulation. You know that 75% of all regulation emanates from Europe and you know that we gold-plate it substantially and that is unacceptable and something that we can do something about relatively easily, and I hope you will take that up but will you say no to some of the regulation that comes from Europe, and will you have the courage to advise this Government to say no, even though it might rock the boat a bit, maybe even as de Gaulle did all those years ago?

  Chairman: In the interests of good order, I shall bring in Mr Bone to ask this question here too so you can take a double whammy on this one.

  Q53  Mr Bone: Welcome, Minister. I am sure I am going to agree wholeheartedly with your response. Can I quote, Mr Chairman? I am afraid this is not from one of my speeches but I would love to have said it. "When I see so many in Brussels and in Member States doing a passable impersonation of the ostrich, with its head in the sand, as they march valiantly towards 1970"—

  Lord Jones of Birmingham: This was my speech, not your speech.

  Q54  Mr Bone: No, no. I am glad you recognize it, because you went on to say "Cheating or ignoring the rules when it suits, when countries are more concerned to protect 4% of their GDP, agriculture, with tariffs and subsidies that harm the poor of our planet, that sums up the EU brilliantly and whoever said that must be congratulated." Is that still your view?

  Lord Jones of Birmingham: In the change of the name of the Department, and indeed the restructuring of the Department, with certain responsibilities going and others coming, although the words—and even you, Chairman, with a twinkle in your eye, referred to it as DBERR and all of that—we refer to it as BERR by the way—the big thing to notice is that the word "business" has appeared in the title for the first time ever. I am thrilled to bits. "Enterprise" is there for so many reasons but if the price we have to pay is one of clumsiness for getting the words "regulatory and reform" in the title over the door, so every day anybody goes in there or comes out of there or sees note paper or anything else, they are constantly reminded of one of the reasons they are there, which is the reform—not better regulation, not looking at it and maybe doing something about it or paying lip service to it but actually reforming it—that is part of the mission statement of the Department. That has never happened before, ever. So first, the Prime Minister is to be congratulated. By the way, he's my Prime Minister and yours. The Prime Minister is to be congratulated on putting that title into the name of the Department and John Hutton is for supporting it, and now what we all have to do at the Department—ministers, civil servants, everybody—is actually get on the page of doing something about that. One of the issues has been in the past—and you referred to it with the words "gold-plating"—is that whilst we are a more lightly regulated society economically and socially than France probably and certainly Germany, the problem has been in the implementation. It has not been in the creation of the regulation or indeed in the transposition of the regulation into English or British law from Brussels. It has actually been in how then the whole thing is implemented, both from the media point of view, what they expect of it, and indeed the reaction that civil servants and politicians have to what is then shown in newspapers, and indeed the way that you look at it when you are a civil servant thinking "How do I protect my Minister from X, Y, and Z?" So the challenge in reforming regulation is not just in saying "I am not going to take this on from Brussels" or "I am going to do this differently." It is how you actually transpose that into making it work, and whilst I am very proud to belong to a country that has a much lower unemployment rate than France, while I am delighted to belong to a country that—with those words I said in my speech that you happily quoted—I know that my country can stand up in world markets and say, "We do not do protectionism like other countries", which is fabulous, but nevertheless, if we can learn from others once or twice, the way the French implement regulation is something from which we could learn a great deal. If you talk to UK companies with subsidiaries in France or you talk to French companies with subsidiaries in Britain, you do often see that the regulations in France are implemented working with the grain of business; they actually work together: how are we going to do this together? Whereas the British way tends to be more "We are doing this to you." That goes throughout society; it is not just a business issue. So can we learn something about regulatory reform implementation? I really would like to see that. I think that is something which could add great value to wealth creation in the country. That means that you get more profitable business, which means you pay more tax, which means you get more schools and hospitals. It is not rocket science. As far as the other part of my speech is concerned, one of the great things with globalisation is that it is a great challenge but it is an enormous opportunity that we can just grasp and turn to advantage if you always think that we salve our conscience similar simply by writing the big aid cheque. The biggest donor of aid in the world is the European Union; the second biggest is America. If we believe that we can just say "That is it, we have salved our conscience, big cheque, we had a concert and did something else," we are deluding ourselves because you will be writing the cheque next year and the year after. You have to create sustainable economies. You have to build capacity in those countries to deal with that sustainable economy. You then have to have the infrastructure—clean water, better healthcare, better education, a road and a port and an airport to get the stuff out and in. Pull that off and you stand a chance of making globalisation work for the poorest countries on Earth. The only real way to do that is to get business to succeed in those countries, because they need a skilled workforce, a healthy workforce, good communications, peace, stability. Without those things, businesses do not work in our society or in any society. So if you get business working well in another country, you tend to get a better result. If what we are going to do as the developed world—it is not just a European Union issue; the Americans and the Japanese as well—if what we are going to say is "We would always like it on our terms, which is we want to sell you our value-added stuff but sorry, you can't come in here with the commodity stuff because it gives democratically elected politicians a problem"—which I fully understand but nevertheless, if we are not going to be brave enough to stand up in the developed world and say "We welcome commodity agricultural produce, we welcome commodity textiles, even uniforms from China, we welcome these things but meet us half way in return, let us have the protections down in both ways so we can sell our value-added stuff to you," that way you will get a more prosperous developing world and in turn, I hope, you will get a more peaceful world.

  Chairman: You are a pretty good politician because I think you answered a question that neither of them actually asked, so that is quite an achievement.

  Q55  Mr Bone: I would just like to say, Mr Chairman, I think it is the first time I have ever agreed with every word a Labour Minister has said. You concluded your remarks on the European Union by saying "What are we actually getting in return for our partial loss of independence?" Do you still hold that view on the EU?

  Lord Jones of Birmingham: One thing I am very pleased about is that the Prime Minister's predecessor came back from Brussels with the so-called red lines actually still intact. That was enormously important because if we are seeing this symbiosis between you lose some sovereignty and get added value in return, and one of the great things is a single market, the other great thing is our flexible labour market and so on, if we were going to see some of those great jewels in the crown go, I think it would be entitled to say, "Just a minute, where is the balance?" It is a question of balance, is it not, and at the moment I think what happened in June kept that balance where it ought to be but the danger is that if it goes ... A very good example would be that we pull something off in Europe—every one of us have actually—which is that you have 480 million people for the first time in 3,000 years have just gone through 60 years without beating the living daylights out of each other. It has never happened in 3,000 years and we have just gone through 60 years of it, with respect to Yugoslavia. On that basis, is it not a shame that you have about 40 million of them who do not have a job? Instead of putting the political emphasis and the push and the money and the drive into the preservation of things—I think I colourfully called it "head in the sand" when you quoted it to me, ostriches—instead of that, what we should be doing is stimulating the value added, innovative, skilled, R&D based aspects of our economic growth which mean that in turn you get sustainable jobs for the future getting in those 45 million people. No-one stands up for the unemployed in Europe. It is the vested interests which stand up and argue, not the unemployed. The unemployed never go on the streets. The unemployed never say "What are you doing for me?" It is high time that Brussels looked to that as well—and I understand why, because democratically elected politicians have big vested interests they have to look to at home and turkeys, I know, do not vote for Christmas, but actually, at the end of the day, we have got to see these 45 million people going into work if we are going to maintain what is the most fabulous achievement of the European Union, which is enduring peace in Western Europe.

  Chairman: Your interpretation of what the Prime Minister brought back from the Council of Ministers is a very different one from mine, I have to tell you. It is the first sign I have had that you are going native and I am very worried about it.

  Q56  Mr Binley: Your brief is a very heavy one and you are working very hard, Digby, and I recognize that. You clearly have not had time to catch up with what was said at the weekend by a Commissioner who said that the red lines had no meaning within the Treaty itself, so you will get there. Let us go on to regulation: £56.6 billion of additional cost to British industry since this Government came to power, and you have made that point on many, many occasions. That is weighing down British industry, making it less easy to employ people, just at the very time when the emerging nations—and I have just been to Eastern Europe—are growing in confidence, growing jobs, growing wages, we are making it more difficult for this country's business sector to sustain jobs and to grow wages. Will you really do something about the cost of regulation? Privately I am happy for you to tell me you will but we in business need you, as a business minister, to do exactly that. Will you do it?

  Lord Jones of Birmingham: The answer is yes. There is another sector of our society that needs the answer yes to that, which is the public sector. If you saw, as you obviously do, the regulation that burdens the chief executive of the hospital and the head teacher of a school, if you saw a policeman with the paperwork of trying to make an arrest, it is a nightmare. This is not just a private sector issue. Secondly, as far as the "yes" is concerned, I do not think that is something I have to talk in private to my fellow ministers in government about. I have to say, I think from the Prime Minister downwards it is a stated intention. What they have to do is try to make it work. I do not think they can promise to make it work but promise to try to make it work.

  Mr Binley: I shall be watching progress very closely.

  Q57  Miss Kirkbride: Lord Jones of Birmingham, congratulations. I have to say your choice of title might well mean we have been snubbed but there we are. You have moved on since you were my constituent but, if I may say congratulations and if it is not rude, I think you are a round peg in a round hole as the Minister for Trade. If you do do all the things you have said in the past in the future, then it is going to be very good news. What you said then is probably the first thing to pick up on because what you said about policemen filling in forms and head teachers filling in forms, it is the target culture, is it not, that has been the hallmark of the last ten years of the Labour Government?

  Lord Jones of Birmingham: I actually would not comment on whether it has been a target culture. What I would say is, not necessarily from government but from society, culture, from all different walks of life, from environmentalists to journalists to everybody, we are becoming a risk-averse culture and I think it is the risk-averse culture which is driving regulation, not targets. Targets might drive other behaviour and ways of looking at things, some of which might be good and some of which might not be, but I think it is this constant fear of blame, compensation, victim, all of that side of life, which is basically driving people to regulate for every single eventuality they can ever think about. Is there a culture driving this nightmare of regulation throughout the public and private sector? Yes, there is, but I think it is a risk aversion as opposed to targets.

  Q58  Miss Kirkbride: In the past there has been talk about a Bill limiting the compensation culture. Will you be pressing for that in your new role?

  Lord Jones of Birmingham: I sincerely hope so. What is important is that you get the balance right. You need bravery in politicians of all parties. If everybody is committed to this, which I would hope all politicians of all parties are, and if at the same time you have civil servants and also, importantly, insurance companies, for instance, up for this, the whole question of insurers—we all know it. They settle cheaply and quickly to save money but on the other hand, what does that do? It just encourages more—everybody, lawyers, the whole lot have to come on board on this, and it is about driving in a different way of looking at issues. Sod's law would dictate that the first bit that is changed will be, just because that is the way life is, be the next problem you have; it will be the one you got rid of last week, and the moment a politician says "No, that is the one that is going," and then something happens, because of party politics, the other side will attack them. Why would they do it again? You have a party politician saying "Get rid of this," they respond, they do it, something happens, they are attacked and why do it again? If true cross-party consensus on dealing with this issue were to exist, there would be a bit more support on the time it goes—not wrong, that is the wrong word to use, but certainly is a challenging situation.

  Q59  Miss Kirkbride: Can I ask you about competitiveness, which is very much your brief, because it goes wider than just trade. Again, it is issues on which you have already made some remarks. Picking up what you said earlier about employment rights and the need to be very careful about that vis-a"-vis attracting foreign investment, it is my understanding that the Government has plans to possibly extend maternity rights and to increase the right to ask for part-time and flexible working. What is your view on this and how good is that going to be for UK plc?

  Lord Jones of Birmingham: Firstly, as far as competitiveness is concerned, it does not just go to creating an environment in which America wants to invest, just to take an example. Last year there were 1,471 different projects of inward investment, 590 of which came from America. The next one down was France with 90. This is how important American investment in this country is, and on that basis they do look to Britain and not others, not just because we speak the global language of business but also because it is a lightly regulated employment market compared with France or Germany. So it is not just about competitiveness in terms of domestic production of goods or delivery of services which attract the Americans and the Japanese. It is also because you need to be competitive in a high wage economy, which we are; regardless of what people say, compared with India and China we are a high wage economy. You have to be competitive in other areas: productivity, investment, R&D, innovation, skill, all of the different ways that get you to be competitive, because the one sure thing you cannot compete on against India and China is wage cost. So we should not just look at it as something which we can all say "Well, we have a nice society, and it is competitive." It is a constant dynamic of getting productivity enhancement into what we do. It never stops. You cannot say the job is done every day. One huge aspect of that is not just the regulatory burden aspect, which you were talking about in terms of make sure you do not burden that small business, you do not burden the bigger one with more people having to look after the regulatory side of life. That is one aspect of employment regulation. The other side of it is how to make it work. How do you physically pull off a very important dynamic? There is a huge reservoir of talent out there that is untapped and that is women wanting to come back into the world of work, either because they have had their children and they want to come back in or because they have had years out and they have not so much confidence and they need to be brought back in. There are loads of people who might have a disability but they are not too disabled to go to work if we find the right environment. A lot of these people have skill and, even if they do not, they have the ability to be skilled. You have kids coming out of prison who, if only we bothered to get them to read, write and count while they are in there and get them skilled up for a job, they would be another reservoir of talent. This country does not have enough skilled people and we have to do it to be competitive, because what we cannot do is merely sell it on cheap labour cost. To do that, you have to have some form of employment regulation to ensure that you can nudge society to get those women in, to get the disabled in, to get those prisoners into the world of work. You have to nudge to do it. What you must not do if you are going to enhance your competitiveness is go too far so employers put it in the "too difficult" box and just say, "I know it is worthy but actually I'm not going to do it. I would rather not employ that many people. I would rather go and do it in India. I'm not going to do it." If you are in the public sector, "I would rather not employ so many people." If you push it to a point where it becomes a perceived, even if it is not a real burden, regulation in those areas, which are vital if we are going to tap into skilled labour, it will work against you. I have no idea. Your specific end question was "Does the Government have in mind more of this regulation?" I frankly do not know. In the Department I know there is a Minister who is in charge of that side of life. I will go and ask him but as I speak I do not know. What I do know is that if you listen to any business or any chief executive of a hospital or head teacher of a school, they will tell you the same thing: "I understand why you need some; just do not burden me to the point where it is not worth it."