hidden_voices

Hidden Voices: The CBI, corporate lobbying and sustainabilityThe evidence above suggests the CBI obsession with regulation is not necessarily thenumber one issue on the minds of UK business. This is very much reinforced by the followingcomment:It’s bollocks. Digby Jones is the classic example of ‘Let’s find something tomoan about.Alan Sugar, chairman of Amstrad.His response when asked about the CBI’s campaign to reduce red tape.In 2004 the tendency of the CBI, and in particular Digby Jones, to raise frequent concernsabout regulation without providing the evidence to back the claims came under fire from UKMPs. Jones claimed that MPs were “asleep on the job” when dealing with EU legislation, andthat and this was “not acceptable” and affected millions of jobs in the UK.This brought an angry response from one member of the House of Commons EuropeanScrutiny Committee, who said: “I have been a member of this committee for three years andnot once has the CBI contacted us about their concerns. Mr Jones is talking through his hat.There are reforms going through the House that address all of his apparent concerns.” 33Downplaying benefits and highlighting negativesLooking specifically at responses on environmental regulation, the CBI’s claims are similarlyoverblown. Below is an extract of an exchange between the CBI Director General Sir DigbyJones and MP Paul Flynn from the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee inJanuary 2005 when debating the impact of the high standards of environmental regulation xi .Sir Digby Jones: “…can I just ask you, do you think it is the job of government domestically tocause huge loss of production and mass unemployment through the prosecution ofextremely strict environmental rules and regulations?Paul Flynn: The job of the government is to save the planet initially.Sir Digby Jones: Even if that is sacrificed?”Contrast this with the opinion of CBI members when asked in 2002 to rate various areas ofregulation, one in five respondents said that environmental regulation was actually positivefor their business competitiveness; they were outnumbered by two to one by those who saidit was negative. This significant positive response should have been reflected by the CBI’sposition.When pressed on what caused most difficulty in the area of environment, health and safety,only around one in five cited increased regulations or legislation. That’s one fifth of the 68people for whom this area was one of their top three concerns – just 15 directors. Only fourpeople specifically mentioned the Climate Change Levy. This level of response can hardlyjustify the CBI’s subsequent attack on regulation in general, and the Climate Change Levyand the Environment Agency in particular.In fact between 2002 and 2003, the proportion of CBI members saying the UK was anattractive place to invest shot up. In 2002 54 per cent said the UK was ‘very’ or ‘fairly’attractive, and the following year the figure rose to 78 per cent.xi House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, Pre budget 2004 and Budget 2005: Tax, Appraisal, andthe Environment, Seventh Report of Session 2004-05, London 13 th April 200527