Youve read their own qualifications . Ive got a digest of the point they make which is that theyve done it according to the governments own impact assessments. Are you aware of what theyve done is add up the costs of the cost benefit analysis but ignored the benefits . Yes and i think i made that clear in my earlier answer. You are aware of that. And, of course, if you add up the cost of a proposal without taking account of the benefits you will always get a high figure. If you were building a bridge and you as i intend to. And have done. Many. [ laughter ] you wouldnt want to ignore the fact that the bridge might prefer some benefits, would you . No, of course not. And i think that have you had can i complete the point . Have you had a look at the costs . Open europe has Something Interesting to say about the benefits. Hang on, boris. Order, order, order. Have you look had a look, boris, at the full list of the costs and measures that they used to arrive . I did look at the i think its a list of 100. Its quite interesting that open europe themselves, you talk of the benefits mr. Tyrie, open europe themselves say 95 of these benefits have not, in fact, materialized. It seems to be a consideration you might take into account they havent said that. What theyve said is that the full benefits are very difficult to quantify. Uhhuh. Which is not quite the same thing. Uhhuh. And they are making the perfectly reasonable point that that a regulation may confirm a heavy cost on a small group but a much broader and more difficult to quantify benefit on a larger group yes, i think for example, a regulation that might reduce consumer debt. So would you accept that in order to give the electorate a fair balance of the costs and benefits at the very least its important to take a close look at the benefits side an also always when quoting a figure to ensure the public are aware of what youve done here is add up the costs and that open europe quite recently have said, and i quote, it is important to note that these rules can bring benefits including facilitating trade across the Single Market. Thats a pretty fair minded and balanced qualification. They all say they can bring benefits however they also say mr. Tiery that these rules have not brought benefits in the way that was advertised or expected. If i may make a jeb point about the socalled Single Market, it was promised when the whoele thing was launched, there was the checkini report, there was excitement about the birth of the Single Market and was going to lead to a great period of European Growth and dynamism, that did not take place. We didnt get the huge expansion in employment in the e. U. We did not get growth if European Union economies. In fact, one of the Amazing Things about this whole debate drch. These are very reasonable point, boris. Im glad you agree. What im trying, though, to illicit from you is a much narrower response yes, well, i think ive given you the answer. The 600 Million Pound figure is very fair considering open europe themselves say 95 of the benefits have not materialized. So you think we can ignore the fact that the benefits are considerable in the list of measures that they themselves provide . Since you yourself have attached great significance to this open europe report, as i do, i think you should attach significance that they say 95 of the benefits have not materialized. Weve already discussed that. Thats not what they say boris. The important point they made clear that there are benefits that may not be quantifiable. Well, the important point if i may say so is what you can do about these regulations and its the view of open europe that they are costly, they are burdensome and there are a great number of them. I think you would concede which fall too heavily on some sectors of our businesses and the advantage of a brexit that we could amend those regulations. Without brexit you can do nothing and if you look at some of the stuff, the Data Protection act, regulations, solvency two directives, many directives and regulations emanating from brussels have either through gold plating in this country or simply because of poor drafting or whatever have been far too expensive and this is the point that open europe are making. They are not untilly tailored to the needs of this economy. Are you aware of the exercise to try and find examples of gold plating undertaken by the government . I am. And did you know they struggled to find very many examples . Well, i think there are some, but they struggled . There are indeed some examples. I mean, an example of perhaps rather than for instance perhaps rather than give me an example now you might send us a list of the areas of gold plating. Id be happy to give you an example now. Only to speed things up. To turn to your i think people want to hear it. Id like to tush to your speech on if 22nd of february, sorry, your telegraph on the 22nd of february where you say that there are these ludicrous rules emanating from the e. U. And that this is the reason for your decision to leave and one of the rules that you cite, one of the ludicrous rules, and i quote, is an e. U. Rule that says you cant recycle a tea bag and that children under eight cant blow up balloons. May i say, mr. Tyrie could you tell me which e. U. Or regulation says children under eight cant blow up balloons. Yes. The European Commissions own web site, i would be happy to give you the number of the press release in a moment. The European Commissions own web site says adult supervision is required in the case of the use of uninflated balloons by children under eight. And i have to say in my household i more or less say only children under right allowed to blow up balloons in my household, mr. Tyrie. I think its ludicrous to have this prescription set up at a european level. Is its bonkers and you do, too. What it says, boris, and i have the toy safety directive requirements in front. It says warning, children under eight can choke or suffocate and its asking this warning be placed on the packaging. Its not requiring or forbid its requiring it to be placed on the packaging. Its requiring a warning to be placed on the packaging. It as not prohibiting children from under eight from blowing up balloons. Well, i think even the European Union would be hard put to go to peoples households to prohibit people from blowing up balloons, people under eight from blowing up balloons. On your point about recycling tea a bag which is you mentioned, there is, of course, the and this is a classic example of gold plating. The e. U. Animal byproducts regulation of 2002 stated that staff that had come into contact with milk or mieat could not be recycled. Cardiff council decided to interpret that in such a way as to forbid people from recycling tea bags. Thats a classic example in my view of the confluence of e. U. Legislation with overzealous british implementation which we might call gold plating. But we can perfectly well decide we want to implement it. Its not true, though, is it to say that theres an e. U. Regulation or directive yes, there is. That prohibits people from recycling tea bags. It would be true to say that some countries might have cold plated or some councils might have cold plated or some regional authorities might have decided to gold plate recycling tea bag. I think youre readily appreciate, mr. Tyrie, that without the regulation from 2002, there would be no scope for the council to institute that prohibition and that is the they are relying on the on e. U. Regulation as i say. Animal byproducts regulation 2002 which i seem to remember i think thats the theres a separate regulation that forbids you from burying your own sheep on your own ground. The animal hygiene regulation. Well, we havent got into sheep yet. But there are myriad of these things and they are taken and used by uk officials however well meaning in such a way as to add greatly to the burden of bureaucracy. Taken and used by or misused by british officials on the back of something from the e. U. Which is not something which prohibits people from recycling tea bags, is it . Its a misrepresentation to say that people are prevented from recycling tea bags. Well, they are by Cardiff Council as a result of e. U. Legislation. Thats a much better description which was unfortunately somehow omitted from your telegraph. I think a fair i think it was put in that dell graph about the stockholm syndrome of uk officials who feel obliged to implement or take the opportunity to implement overzealously the legislation emanating from the e. U. Thats the whole point. One of the interesting things about this country is we are far more enthusiastic about implementing these regulations than others and we take it far more seriously. One of the nightmares i have in london is obviously trying to the problem is its a series of uninterrupted joy, my job in london, but one of the big challenges is getting more housing built fast. Theres no doubt at all that e. U. Regulation legislation of one kind or another, Environmental Impact assessments, whatever slow down the planning process and you have to wonder whether those processes would be quite so cumbersome and quite so slow in other European Countries because we do relish this bureaucracy im afraid in this country and we tend to implement so youre going to change your line of fire from the speech and article which which are attacking e. U. Regulation and the actions of uk officials which have caused the problem. Of course, because the e. U. Regulation did not itself bring it did. I must respectfully disagree with you. Without the animal byproducts regulation 2002 there would be no scope for the officials in question to enact this provision. Lets let other people perform their own view about composting of tea bags. You said ive got your book here lend me your ears. In that you say there really is european legislation on the weight die mentimensions and composition of a coffee. Is that there is can you tell me where that is . Now, that im just trying to that was a firm that was to do with the shipment of corpses across frontiers. Thats correct. And i seem to remember that there were various british funeral operations, a very successful funeral operation in this country that was keen to have some sort of european provision on this and the result was a euro of fine as far as i can remember or regulations on the maxima and minute ma of euro coffins. I dont believe it was remotely necessary for the safe and Successful Operation of the Single Market or indead since the whole term Single Market is widely misunderstood, free trade across europe would have continued unimpeded without legislation on the size and shiep of a euro coffin. They probably had to change those dimensions radically since nerve this country started getting fatter and fatter. [ laughter ] actually, its not an e. U. Regulation at all, is it . Well, its a european as far as i can its a long time since i studied this matter. Its more than 20 years ago. This is something that i seem to remember arose from some brussels institution. You wrote in the your book a decade ago, its not 20 years ago. And youre defting it now, its the council of Europe Convention on the transfer of corporations and in there there is no reference to coffin weight dimensions. Im sorry to say i think youre wrong. Nor is there any e. U. Legislation and nor is the uk a signatory. So the story is a i think that its from your imagination. No, im afraid, sir, i think youre in error but its a long time since i looked at it. There was a question about the maxima and minute ma of coffin sizes and my memory that it was to do with the e. U. There was legislation and that it was e. U. Okay. Well if you can provide that is my memory. If you can provide with us that after the meeting wed be interested to take a look. Ive been through quite a list there either of things which require quite a bit of qualification to understand and where i think a reasonable man would say you had either exaggerated or misrepresented the i dont think so at all. I think you failed utterly in your experiment if i may say so. Well, thats a jumts others listening to this can make. Do you think on reflection and perhaps you dont, having just made that remark, it might be prudent in the interests of generating a strong case, that you add qualifications in the time that you make these remarks . May i just say how strongly i feel about this . Because there is a great deal of effort being made at the moment to deprecate the views of those who think we should leave, to undermine their point of view and to say that everything we say about the e. U. Is smu omeho ill give you an example. Whats that got do with the question i just asked . Ill tell you. Youve asked me whether i want to recant some of the things i said. I havent asked you to do that. Ive asked you to make sure that you qualify and provide the full and balanced view in your own interest of point which is may, indeed, in one way or another turntoan extent support your case but which because of the language that youve used and your onesided description of them many might feel is an kbaj ration to the point of a misrepresentation. Well, i dont agree with that and let me explain why i feel so strongly about this. There was an instance i mentioned on the andrew mar show of the cab dimensions we wanted to have in london in order to minimize deaths of cyclists and an Organization Called in facts produced a well, wrote an article on their web site which i think has been widely red suggesting this was untrue, that there was no such problem and that the e. U. Had agreed unanimously a provision that would protect cyclists with new types of cab and i have to say that having studies the direct i have closely, as im sure you have, too, mr. Tyrie, its completely untrue. The directive in question i think 213 0195 from memory, did indeed attempt to modify the dimensions of cabs mainly from an aerodynamic povr. That was what they were trying to achieve principally. There was some change to visibility but it go not where near what we needed in terms of lowering the driver and getting the windows big enough so as to be able to see vulnerable road users in the way we wanted and there were representations made to amend this directive, the weights and dimensions directive when it was going through and we tried to do that but the truck industries in france and, indeed, sweden, fought the thing off. We cant get it through, Type Approval for truck dimensions for cabs, lorrie cabs have been passed to the your een mean union. So i cant do it, the department of transport cant do it, we cant make essential changes to the dimensions of truck cabs in our country that would save the lives of cyclists and i have to say reading some of the stuff from the remain camp, i think they should get their facts straight. This is something that ive tried very, very hard to make a difference on in london. Weve campaigned very hard to make cycling safer. We have an opportunity to have a new regime for truck cabs in our city, it would save lives, lives particularly of female cyclists and its a great shame that in the interests of propaganda what we have tried to do is being misrepresented by the remain campaign and the fact is that weve lost the power to do it, its been handed over to brussels its a shame. Were trying to get beyond the misrepresentation on both sides. Youve seen what weve been trying to do with respect to claims by the remain side. Oh, i see. You seem surprise sbld im delighted . Every question thats being asked of you is in that spirit. You would acknowledge wouldnt you with respect to the very regulation youre just referring to that the uk would have no sigh on truck Safety Standards and the rest of the e. U. If we left and that therefore your ability to influence what e. U. Trucks look like when they came to the uk unless you banned them yes, of course, of course. Would be severely limited. Would you consider that to be a restraint to trade . No, it would be a very sensible measure. So would ban lorries that dont conform or trucks that dont conform to your standards, is that right . If i may, perhaps for the benefit of the committee, we are already pioneering the worlds first safer lorrie zone within an urban area and we are already instituting various requirements for mirrors, for all sorts of ways in which for blind spots, all sorts of way this was in which we can minimize the risk to vulnerable road users. This is a further step that is technologically possible thanks to the evolution of cab design. Basically you get a buslike cab and put it on a truck. They look fantastic, they are fantastic, they save lives. You cant do it at the moment because its blocked in brussels. Well, its blocked by one country, in fact, isnt it . Well, its either france or sweden. It is france and im told the swedes the principles that you seem to be arguing for is for some form of standardized regulation. Have i got that right . Respectfully, mr. Tyrie, i dont think you have got it right because what im arguing for is the ability of londoners and the youre asking for unilateral regulations . Well, thats in the nature of a safer lorrie zone. I think it would be a good thing. And if i may make a comparison you are arguing for that even if it may be deleterious to trade. I dont believe it would be deleterious to trade. I think what it would do is stimulate the market for better and more better and safer cabs and i think it would be a great thing and i think it would save lives. I think at this point ill hand you over to the tender hands of my colleague. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman, im, of course, on your side. Im a supporter of dont leave and you can assume that we might appeal ultimately to french because i assume they dont wish to go around murdering cyclists so it could be successful across europe if we ask them first. I think the problem is if i can be frank, the problem is renault and stania have been reluctant to move as fast as they might because they havent got their truck caps in the state of evolution that they would want in order to take advantage of this market. Other firms have so the french have been using their position. This can only be passed with unanimity. The french have been using their position to block it and its a great shame and if we took back control wed be able to make our streets safer. Thank you very much. If i can move on to the laws that are read in the uk that emanate from the e. U. And youre making the important point about card