It would be a strange Government that openly promised to introduce more red tape. Just as train companies announce the wrong sort of rain, snow or leaves on the line, there appear to be different types of red tape. Yesterday David Cameron was interviewed by a number of broadcasters, in preparation for his appearance at a meeting of the Federation of Small Business. His theme throughout the interviews was that his Government would be the first ever Government to end their term having reduced the regulatory pressure on Businesses. This article was written following his speech at the FSB:

“In a speech to the Federation of Small Businesses today, Cameron said more than 3,000 rules will be cut or amended, saving more than £850m a year. Rules that fall under the Prime Minster’s plan include 380 pages of waste management rules, 640 pages of cattle movement guidance and 286 pages of hedgerow regulations. Labelling small businesses the “life blood of the economy”, Cameron’s comments will be a welcome move for those struggling with regulatory compliance.”

As a matter of principle, unnecessary rules and administrative burden cannot ever be a good thing, whilst good rules and an appropriate level of administration is probably a necessity. In the light of a recent banking crisis and remembering a Political Party led by David Cameron that pressed hard for “unnecessary red tape” to be removed, can we trust a Government led by David Cameron to know what the right sort of red tape is? Having followed the progress of the Lobbying Bill through the Government from its early stages in March or April 2013 to its current position in January 2014, with major criticisms from Politicians on both sides for rushed progress, can we trust that the same Government will follow due and necessary process in the light of his promise to slash 80,000 pages of environmental guidance by March 2015?

Having already mentioned the lobbying Bill, would someone remind David Cameron and his advisers, that despite intense opposition from charities across the country, this Government is poised to wind a large roll of red tape around large parts of the charitable sector. We are not small businesses, but a cursory amount of research shows that we employ Millions of people and carry out services that neither the state nor the private sector could hope to replace, if our sector was not active and engaged in public life.

UK Green Building Council chief executive Paul King said: “The Prime Minister’s boasts of ‘slashing 80,000 pages’ of environmental guidance is utterly reprehensible. “It is the same poisonous political rhetoric from Number 10, devaluing environmental regulation in a slash and burn manner. These words are not only damaging and irresponsible, but misrepresent the wishes of so many modern businesses, both large and small.”

I do have a suggestion for the PM. At present his Government monitors how much of their procurement they carry out with so called Small to Medium Size Enterprises. Their target is 25%. However a Medium Size Enterprise could employ 250 people and have a turnover of £50M. Few of these businesses are part of the FSB, many are national organisations with no connection to local communities. Why doesn’t the Government set a target for how much procurement they carry out through FSB size businesses? A Small Business employs less than 51 people, and a micro enterprise less than 11 people. If the Government had targets for the amount of business they carry out with these small and micro companies they could help the life blood of the UK economy to flow more quickly and create jobs to replace some of those lost as a result of the problems caused last time David Cameron was arguing for lighter regulation.