‘(1) Section 47 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (civil liability) is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (7).
(2) In subsection (1), omit paragraph (b) (including the “or” at the end of that paragraph).
(3) For subsection (2) substitute—
“(2) Breach of a duty imposed by a statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision) health and safety regulations shall not be actionable except to the extent that regulations under this section so provide.
(2A) Breach of a duty imposed by an existing statutory provision shall not be actionable except to the extent that regulations under this section so provide (including by modifying any of the existing statutory provisions).
(2B) Regulations under this section may make provision about the extent to which breach of a duty imposed by other health and safety legislation is actionable (including by modifying that legislation).
(2C) The reference in subsection (2B) to “other health and safety legislation” is to—
(a) any provision of an enactment which relates to any matter relevant to any of the general purposes of this Part but is not among the relevant statutory provisions; and
(b) any provision of an instrument made or having effect under any such enactment as is mentioned in paragraph (a) other than a provision of a statutory instrument that contains (with other provision) health and safety regulations.
(2D) Regulations under this section may include provision for—
(a) a defence to be available in any action for breach of the duty mentioned in subsection (2), (2A) or (2B);
(b) any term of an agreement which purports to exclude or restrict any liability for such a breach to be void.”
(4) In subsection (3), omit the words from “, whether brought by virtue of subsection (2)” to the end.
(5) In subsection (4)—
(a) for “and (2)” substitute “, (2) and (2A)”, and
(b) for “(3)” substitute “(2D)(a)”.
(6) Omit subsections (5) and (6).
(7) After subsection (6) insert—
“(7) The power to make regulations under this section shall be exercisable by the Secretary of State.
(8) The Secretary of State must obtain the consent of the Welsh Ministers before making any regulations by virtue of subsection (2B) that contain provision which would be within the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales if it were contained in an Act of the Assembly.”
(8) In section 82 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (general provisions as to regulations)—
(a) in subsection (3), after “subsection (4)” insert “or (5)”, and
(b) after subsection (4) insert—
“(5) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations made by virtue of section 47(2B) shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
(9) Where, on the commencement of this section, there is in force an Order in Council made under section 84(3) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 that applies to matters outside Great Britain any of the provisions of that Act that are amended by this section, that Order is to be taken as applying those provisions as so amended.
(10) The amendments made by this section do not apply in relation to breach of a duty which it would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament to impose by an Act of that Parliament.
(11) The amendments made by this section do not apply in relation to breach of a duty where that breach occurs before the commencement of this section.’.—(Matthew Hancock.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Government new clause 14 relates to civil liability for breaches of health and safety duties. It fulfils our commitment in the Budget to introduce measures to reduce the burden of health and safety, following the recommendations made in the independent Löfstedt report. Professor Löfstedt considered the impact that the perception of a compensation culture has had in driving over-compliance with health and safety at work regulations. The fear of being sued drives businesses to exceed what is required by the criminal law, diverting them from focusing on sensible preventive health and safety management and resulting in unnecessary costs and burdens.
Professor Löfstedt identified the unfairness that can arise when health and safety at work regulations impose a strict duty on employers that makes them liable to pay compensation to employees injured or made ill by their work, despite all reasonable steps having been taken to protect them from harm. Employers can, for example, be held liable for damages when an injury is caused by equipment failure, even when a rigorous examination would not have revealed the defect. The new clause is designed to address that and other unfair consequences of the existing health and safety system.
We all have different reasons for coming into politics. When I was growing up, I had one of the experiences that brought me to this place, concerning the over-burdensome intervention of health and safety officers. I worked in a family computer software company when an over-long health and safety investigation took place, which took up huge amounts time for the officers and senior management. The only result at the end of it was the recommendation that some bleach in a cupboard must be labelled correctly. After a sign was put up saying, “There is bleach in the cupboard. Please do not drink it,” the company was passed under the health and safety regulations.
These changes will ensure that there is a reasonableness defence in the consideration of some health and safety cases.
I am enjoying the march back through time to the Minister’s computer existence. I speak as a former health and safety barrister—on behalf of the prosecution, I should say. I welcome the changes recommended in the independent report. Is not what we are trying to do to bring flexibility and fairness to a system that is too old and defunct?
We are ensuring that due health and safety measures are protected, but that there is a test of reasonableness for the actions of employers, so that those who have taken all reasonable precautions cannot be prosecuted for a technical breach. That will reduce the impression among many businesses, especially small businesses, that they are liable to health and safety legislation in many cases when they are not. It will reduce that impression while ensuring that taking reasonable steps to abate health and safety difficulties remains a vital part of everybody’s responsibilities. Indeed, the new clause does not change the criminal procedures in relation to health and safety.
How do we propose to do this? Civil claims for personal injury can be brought by two routes: a breach of the common-law duty of care, in which case negligence has to be proved, or a breach of statutory duty, in which case the failure to meet the particular legal standard alleged to have been breached has to be proved. The new clause will amend the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to remove the right to bring civil claims for breach of a statutory duty contained in certain health and safety legislation.
The 1974 Act does not give that protection, because a test of negligence is not required to proceed with a prosecution. In future, proof of negligence will be required to bring a case. It will be possible to bring a civil action for a breach of common-law duty of care only on the basis that the employer has been negligent.
I am enjoying the Minister’s attention to detail on this important matter. Will he reassure us that this provision will not add to the burden for small businesses because of the process of providing proof? Has he done any number crunching to show what it will mean for the businesses that matter so much to Britain?
My hon. Friend anticipates my speech, because this provision will reduce the burdens on business. It is difficult to know precisely by how much because businesses react not only to the letter of the law, but to the perception of the law. There are perceived health and safety requirements that go beyond technical breaches of the law, and we want to remove them. One can go to the new Government website and ask whether something is required by health and safety legislation. Many of the cases that are brought to the Government’s attention are not required by health and safety legislation. The problem is the perception of health and safety legislation. By including a reasonableness defence, we will help to remove the implied, expected and perceived burdens on business.
I have found no evidence of that. If my hon. Friend can point any out to me, I would be extremely grateful.
I welcome the direction in which the Minister is taking the debate and the policy. I will never forget a conversation that I had in Macclesfield marketplace, a place with which I know he is familiar. A lady told me how disturbed she was that the perception of health and safety was giving it a bad name. I asked who she worked for and she said the Health and Safety Executive. The situation is going too far. Does the Minister agree that it is important to move to a common-sense approach, which I think is the direction in which he is taking Government policy?
It is important to have a health and safety framework in which responsible businesses act in a way that supports and enhances the safety of the people who work for them. Indeed, it is vital that we all have a duty to behave reasonably on questions of health and safety.
I hope that making negligence a requirement before a health and safety case can be brought will mean that those who behave reasonably have no reason to fear health and safety legislation and that those who think carefully and responsibly about the businesses that they run will know that they are behaving not only reasonably, but lawfully.
Indeed, this action will reduce the burdens on business and help Britain to compete. It also provides important reassurance to employers that they will be liable to pay compensation only when it can be proved that they have been negligent.
I well recall when I worked in the shipyards watching the white particles of dust and asking whether they had any health and safety implications, only for the employer to tell me, “Don’t be stupid. Get on with your lot, young man. It won’t do you any harm.” Hundreds of thousands of people are now suffering from mesothelioma. Is that the kind of employer that the Minister wants to support?
The hon. Gentleman gives a good explanation of why there is cross-party support for health and safety measures that are reasonable. After all, it was a Conservative Government who brought in the Factory Acts. On the specific point that he raises, the provision is forward looking and is not retrospective. It will not have an impact on acts that were committed in the past, but is about actions that take place in the future. He raises an important question and I hope that I have reassured him.
The definition of reasonableness will come from the common-law interpretation, and the concept is already well regarded and specified in law.
The new clause makes a significant contribution to the Government’s reform of civil litigation to redress the balance between claimants and defendants. It is good for Britain’s competitiveness, reduces burdens on businesses, and strengthens and underpins our health and safety system, thereby ensuring that people think it is fit for purpose.
I am concerned by the Minister’s remarks because far too many people are already killed at work each year, and people are also injured through faulty or wrong seating and other things that happen. The office is not a safe working space, and when the Minister says that we worry too much about health and safety, I am worried that we will make things far worse for people not only in heavy industry but in other working situations. Health and safety legislation exists to protect those people from back injury, repetitive strain injury and all the other things that occur. This legislation will completely reduce that issue in people’s minds.
On the contrary, although I share the hon. Lady’s concerns to ensure that health and safety legislation is regarded and reasonably interpreted throughout work forces, whether in industry, agriculture or offices, and although such legislation is an important part of the modern workplace, it is unhelpful when health and safety becomes a byword for regulations that get in the way and stop businesses competing or, for instance, children from being taken on school trips once reasonable precautions have been put in place, and instead bring the whole system into disrepute. That is what the Government are trying to stop. The key defence of negligence ensures that if people breach health and safety rules or have not acted reasonably, that will—of course—be taken into account under the system, and the new clause will not change criminal health and safety procedures. We must, however, ensure that unreasonable claims, and the existing perception of health and safety legislation, do not get in the way of Britain’s ability to compete.
The Minister is pushing the point about perception. He is right: businesses do respond to perception, and sometimes go further than is legally required. However, if they respond to perception in one direction, they may well respond to a new perception in another direction and do less than is required. If that is the case, how many injuries or deaths will it take for the Minister to be back at the Dispatch Box rewinding some of the changes?
If businesses behave unreasonably and are negligent, they will be caught by the system. That proves the point about why we have to strike a good balance between a health and safety system that everybody supports and under which employers—and others—have to behave reasonably and take reasonable precautions, and a system in which the test of having acted reasonably is not a defence in civil law. That is the change being made; it will help to free up business, and I commend the new clause to the House.
If only, Mr Deputy Speaker.
This is my first opportunity to congratulate Matthew Hancock on his promotion. It is a pleasure to see him at the Dispatch Box, as he has been many times in his guise as Disraeli, Churchill, or perhaps Sir Robert Peel, and it is good to see him in his current incarnation.
In his opening remarks, the Minister mentioned that the new clause seeks to deal with perception. We should not, however, be legislating on the basis of perception, and as he spoke I became increasingly concerned that this is yet another example of an insensitive, out-of-touch Government who somehow deem all regulation as inherently bad, and health and safety legislation as all-encompassing, bureaucratic and often unnecessary.
I have missed Julian Smith over the course of the summer, and I remember with affection some of his interventions in Committee. I welcome him back; it is good to see him.
I reciprocate the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. Does he agree with the Government that perception is important in health and safety legislation in almost the same way as in employment law? Does he claim that there is no issue with perception, and does he totally disagree with what the Government are trying to do?
On perception, there is a feeling in the country—it is often fuelled by the media—that the so-called health and safety culture is inevitably a drag on economic growth and recovery. We must, however, set the context, and I want to make an important point to the Minister. The TUC estimates that every year at least 20,000 people die prematurely as a result of injuries, illnesses, or accidents caused by or in their place of work. That is far too many. The shocking figure from the Health and Safety Executive of 173 workers who were fatally injured at work often excludes a large number of other work-related deaths, but that figure alone means that 173 people went to work and did not come back, and that should not happen in a modern, compassionate society.
Does my hon. Friend agree that improvements to the health and safety regime were out there for all to see during the construction of the Olympic site? There were no deaths and few injuries, which was because the health and safety regime had been properly applied.
I agree with my hon. Friend. In the great and almost universal celebration of the London Olympics this summer, we should never forget that we saw the first Olympic stadium and village in the history of the games to be built without a single fatality. That is something to be proud of and was a result of the good partnership between Government—of all political persuasions—management and trade unions, together with workers, working to ensure that nobody was injured or killed while doing such important work.
Not only did I serve on the Public Bill Committee for this important Bill, but I served on the Löfstedt review into health and safety reform, as did a representative from the Trades Union Congress, Sarah Veale. I assure the shadow Minister that there was absolute agreement among those on the Löfstedt review, including the TUC, that the perception of health and safety legislation—indeed, over-perception—is wrong in this country, and is holding back business and giving health and safety a bad name. The new clause goes some way in addressing that.
I will go on to address the Löfstedt report in specific terms, and say where we agree with it and where we disagree, particularly with regard to the new clause, and if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will expand on that point. I am conscious that my hon. Friend Luciana Berger, a proud member of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, also wants to intervene, but I will first give way to Guy Opperman.
I am most grateful. All hon. Members will support the fact that the Olympics produced a death-free environment during the construction phase. However, changing laws on limited civil issues from strict liability to a balance of proof civil liability would not necessarily have affected or changed that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with and acknowledge that.
I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. In his opening remarks, however, the Minister mentioned a degree of concern about perception. Health and safety is first and foremost an important means to achieve safety for the worker, but a safe and healthy work force and workplace can also be efficient and productive. I wish to expand on that point, but I will first give way to my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend is generous in giving way, and I echo his welcome for the fact that there were no deaths during the construction of the Olympic site. However, there were 50 deaths in this country last year on construction sites, and as he said, 173 fatal injuries, which was only two fewer deaths than the previous year, which indicates that we have a long way to go; 173 families have been affected. The Minister spoke of perception, but I am concerned about the reality for the families of those who have tragically died at work.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important that the House and the country has
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will move on.
There are benefits to business from an effective and proportionate health and safety regime. As I mentioned, a safe and healthy work force can be a productive and effective work force. The Institution of Occupational Safety and Health estimates that, by having an effective health and safety regime, employers could save up to £7.8 billion, individuals could save up to £5.12 billion, and the economy, each and every year, could save up to £22.2 billion. It is important that health and safety is classed not as unnecessary and bureaucratic, but as conducive to good, effective and sustainable economic growth.
It is with those figures in mind that we should consider the merits of health and safety regulations and legislation, and the long-established premise of strict liability. As we know and as the Minister said, Professor Löfstedt reported in November last year. My right hon. Friend Stephen Timms, who speaks for the Opposition on health and safety, welcomed many aspects of Löfstedt’s review. As my right hon. Friend said, most of it was positive, sensible and evidence-based, which is not a phrase we have heard often in deliberations on the Bill, and reinforced the view that health and safety is not a burden.
Over a number of years, the Health and Safety Executive has undertaken simplification exercises, which had support from both trade unions and employers. There are 46% fewer regulations than 35 years ago, and there has been a 57% reduction in the number of forms used. There is a perception that firms, and particularly small firms, spend disproportionate time on health and safety to the detriment of business and growth, but the average business spends
20 hours and just over £350 a year on health and safety risk management and assessment, according to the Minister’s Department. Such activities therefore do not exactly take up a huge amount of businesses’ time.
The Labour party has always been on the side of small businesses, and Labour Members will continue to be so. In the 13 years of Labour government from 1997 to 2010, 1.2 million businesses were created, whereas 50 businesses each and every day are folding as a result of the current Government’s macro-economic polices and the double-dip recession. I shall therefore take no lessons from the hon. Gentleman.
Professor Löfstedt suggested that the UK needs a greater understanding of risk. We need to reject tabloid claims and the perception at the centre of the debate so far that health and safety legislation has somehow gone too far. He also recommends that education is provided to employers, workers and students on the dangers they face. However, the short section on strict liability in Professor Löfstedt’s report offers no argument or evidence for changing the current legislative arrangements, but rather an assumption that strict liability is unfair on employers. In fact, Löfstedt refers to three cases, but two were not strict liability cases, so would not be affected by the new clause. The assumption that the Government are guilty of making—they have been guilty of making many such assumptions on employment rights—is that the removal of that type of liability in some cases will boost the economy. That is economically illiterate, however, and not the solution that businesses, including small businesses, want to get us out of the double-dip recession that has been made in Downing street.
I mentioned the accusation of there being no evidence—we have heard that phrase time and again during the consideration of the Bill. There has been no consultation on the measure, which means that there could well be unintended consequences, because the Government have not sought the expertise of those who deal intimately with such issues. There has been no impact assessment on the measure, but can the Minister say why not? What are the expected costs and benefits of implementing the measure, which is supposed to liberate businesses to concentrate on economic growth? Does he have tangible, quantifiable, empirical evidence to support such claims?
Health and safety regulation has always contained a balance between different types of obligation—the majority are qualified by the phrase “reasonable practicability”, but some are strict. Although Professor Löfstedt had the insight that “reasonable practicability” has underpinned health and safety regulation, it has never been the key concept. A central point of the Opposition’s argument is that the balance has existed since the Factories Act 1937, which have been mentioned. In that three quarters of a century, the balance has been generally considered fair. Removing it risks taking us back to a 19th century mill owner’s view of health and safety, which the Opposition could never support.
If someone is injured because of a defect in a piece of equipment provided by their employer, the law is that it is no defence for the employer to say that they had a proper system of maintenance and inspection. Most people would think that right and fair, so it is unfortunate that the Government do not. They believe it is unfair for an employer to be the subject of civil action and pay compensation when they are not at fault, but what about fairness and justice for the injured worker? They are not at fault and did not ask to be injured. The new clause would remove the right to compensation for workers in those circumstances unless they can prove fault. The Government seek to place the burden on vulnerable employees, but the employer, and not the employee, selects and provides the work equipment. Regardless of fault, it is therefore the employer and not the employee who creates the risk. That is important.
Prior to my previous question, I should have declared an indirect interest, which is already on record.
Given the emphasis placed on business concerns by Conservative Members, does my hon. Friend agree that it is slightly surprising that the Federation of Small Businesses briefing to MPs does not mention them? Perhaps that suggests that the line he is taking is the correct one.
The FSB has been incredibly important throughout the consideration of the Bill, including on green investment bank and ensuring that the supply chain can derive benefit from the potential in the new green economy, but it did not mention such concerns. The measure is not a priority for business and its absence is not a hindrance to economic growth. The balance, which has been well established for three quarters of a century, works well and will not hinder growth or recovery.
I mentioned that it was the employer, not the employee, who creates the risk. Importantly, however, it is also the employer who can better distribute the cost that the risk creates. Indeed, the employee has no ability to distribute the costs at all. Removing strict liability does nothing to remove unfairness or to mitigate risk. All it does is move it elsewhere to the detriment of the vulnerable employee. There is an inevitable unfairness in that scenario that requires such a policy choice—between innocent employee and innocent employer—and there seems to be no compelling reason why the loss should fall on the employee.
Where there is no fault among the employer or employee, one sensible solution would be to allow employers to sue third parties—for instance, manufacturers or suppliers of potentially defective goods—because it would allow them to manage risk and effectively recoup compensation made to employees. What consideration has the Minister given to this sensible approach in an area that has been overlooked? I urge him not to pursue it by tampering with an approach to regulation that has served us well since the 1937 Act and certainly since the 1974 Act.
This is yet another example of Ministers seeking to water down vital civil redress on the basis of anecdote, ideology and perception. Such a measure should not be in what the Government deem to be an enterprise Bill.
In Committee, mention was made of anecdote, a lack of evidence and perceptions, but we have to add a new one, which the Minister led with—impressions. We now have a Government run by impressions, but they are not very good at making impressions.
The new clause will do nothing to enhance recovery and enterprise, and might have the unintended consequence of making the health and safety environment less safe and therefore less productive and efficient. I ask the Minister to think again, because this does nothing to aid the recovery that the country so badly needs.
The Minister started with his experience in the world of health and safety. My experience is based not only on my life as someone who worked for 20 years in the coal mining industry and then as a care worker but before that on the experience of my father, who worked the coal mines in the 1930s, when, in this country, one coal miner was killed every six hours on average. Think about that. One thousand men a year did not go home, in part because health and safety was a laughing matter and put to one side, because production was all. My father was twice buried alive—thankfully, he got out both times—and had a very close friend die in his arms, having had his head crushed between two mining coal tubs. It was not a satisfactory way to spend your life.
As a result of that history, the Government in 1947 nationalised the coal mines, set up a train of processes that included health and safety committees in the mining industry and joint consultative committees, and started planning for legislation that produced the Mines and Quarries Act 1954. That Act was actually put in place by a one-nation Tory Government, but they did it for the right reasons—to improve the conditions of people who were vital to the economic success of this country. As a result of that legislation and the improved techniques and machinery, the number of people dying in mines in the 1980s could be counted in single figures. The work force was depleted by about 70% between the 1930s and 1980s, but the number of health and safety measures fell from 1,000 to fewer than 10. For me, that history is vital to understanding how important health and safety issues are.
In 1989, I moved from the mines to become a care worker taking care of elderly people. Members might think that that is a completely different scenario, but let us think about it. The Minister gave the example of the bottle of bleach in the cupboard. It is important to know what is in cupboards to which people might well have access, particularly older people who might not have the capacity to understand what they are dealing with. That is why we introduced measures such as the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002, which were about protecting people dealing with dangerous liquids.
There were issues around the lifting and handling of people who were not mobile. The impact on care businesses was huge. People accepted, however, that if they wanted to do things properly and protect not only the workers but the people they were taking care of, they needed to introduce such measures. There were other issues around medication—how to supply it, how to make it safe, how to make sure it was not given to the wrong person, how to make sure that medication records were kept up to speed—that were all part and parcel of the health and safety measures that we should all be pleased are in place.
The discussions on the Bill have been marked, certainly in Committee, by a lack of real evidence. The man tasked by the Prime Minister with reviewing employment law, Adrian Beecroft, was questioned during the evidence-taking sessions, particularly by my hon. Friend Chris Ruane. In response to the question about what the empirical evidence and research was based on, Adrian Beecroft said:
“I accept the accusation that my views on whether the change would improve the efficiency of people working in businesses are based on conversations with a sample of people, which is not statistically valid.”––[Official Report, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Public Bill Committee,
The hon. Gentleman is making some important points, but, regarding evidence, perhaps we could learn lessons from our European partners. For example, the nursery staff ratio in Germany is considerably less than here, which has driven down the costs while maintaining safety. So there is evidence, if we look further afield.
I am more than happy to follow that knowledge. If we want examples, let us look at Germany right across the board—at its employment legislation and practices, including on health and safety. It is a good example of an economy that is growing while having much tighter working rights and better regulation than this country does.
That is absolutely right. We took the best of what we had in this country, and thankfully the Germans picked it up. It would be a good idea if we looked at what they did and brought it here.
To repeat, Adrian Beecroft talked about
“conversations with a sample of people, which is not statistically valid.”––[Official Report, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Public Bill Committee,
So there is no evidence base. It is a couple of guys talking in the pub, at a football match or out playing golf. It is two old guys sitting in deck chairs, saying, “Wouldn’t it be nice if we got rid of all this health and safety stuff and all these employment rights? Then everyone could make more money.”
Whether perception or reality, one thing we know for certain is that nearly 200 people were killed in the workplace last year and that in excess of 20,000 people were killed or died as a result of work. That is the evidence base. That is factually correct. There is little evidence other than that. Does my hon. Friend agree?
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. He speaks from the history of the real world, not from just reading books and studying things at university. He has been in the real world and seen how people are affected when health and safety is allowed to go by the board. The words that were used continually in Committee were: “The perception is this”, “The impression is this”. It was based on anecdotes and assumptions. There was no evidence. If we create laws without evidence, we create nonsense.
In conclusion, I return to the word that I asked the Minister to define—“reasonableness”. In 20 or 30 years of negotiating contracts for people at work, that is one of the words I used to hate in any contract, because “reasonable” is made of elastic. It is a word used by lawyers and others to get around things. I will give hon. Members a real example. I used to represent home care workers, who went into people’s houses and took care of some of the most vulnerable people in this country. Their contracts included a range of duties, and included the words, “and other reasonable things”. There were questions: is it reasonable for a home care worker to bathe an old man or old woman? Is it reasonable for a home care worker to distribute medication to a man or woman? One would think, “Well, of course it is,” but if something went wrong, the employer would say, “You shouldn’t have been doing that. You’re not paid to do that. You shouldn’t have given that medication; you didn’t know whether they’d had it earlier in the day.” I am therefore concerned when the Minister says that the word “reasonable” can apply in that way, because it is a word that will be argued over and tossed around whenever there is a dispute.
Let me return to the point, which was mentioned earlier, that the Bill will create a “new impression”. It will create the impression that all bets are off—that employers do not have to care about health and safety, and that people can do what they want as long as they believe it is reasonable. It will not be reasonable when the statistics that my hon. Friend Ian Lavery spoke about earlier are not 200 people but 300 people a year killed in the workplace. Indeed, it will not be 20,000 people dying from injuries, but 30,000 people. We will come to regret this; it should be stopped at this stage.
I rise to speak as chair of the all-party health and safety group. Unfortunately there are no active junior coalition partners on the group; hence the reason we have such a poor turnout from the junior coalition partners for this debate. I have no doubt that at the next election the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Jo Swinson—who is in her place on the Front Bench—will be telling people in the west of Scotland that she stood up for workers. However, we will be reminding her of what her party has been doing for the workers.
The all-party group’s activities include producing reports. Just recently we published a report in conjunction with the TUC on asbestos in schools. I would encourage the Minister to get a copy of that report, which basically suggests that we have to challenge perceptions. Who would have thought that there was a health and safety issue in our schools? But there is. Some of our decaying schools are riddled with asbestos, and pupils, teachers, janitors and other people working in schools are being exposed to it. People do not see it, so they think there is not a problem, but there is in fact a major problem. Despite representations to the coalition Government to take action, they have so far refused to do so, which is unacceptable. Indeed, I am told that this place is being shut down for a number of years to deal with asbestos, so it is quite okay to clear the asbestos in this place, so that we can all live safely, but we cannot do it for our children in the schools. That for me tests the perception of this coalition Government when it comes to health and safety.
As I have said, in my earlier days when I worked in the shipyards in the west of Scotland in Glasgow, I remember seeing white flakes floating down and being told by the employer, “You’re just a trouble maker. There’s nothing wrong with them; it’s just rays of sunshine coming through.” I have to admit that we do not get many rays of sunshine in Glasgow, but on the days that we did, we could see those white flakes floating down. We raised concerns, but we were told that we were just being stroppy and obtrusive, when in fact we were talking about something that caused a real disease that people could not see. Since then I have attended far too many funerals of people who worked in the shipyards and had died a horrible death from mesothelioma. Indeed, even insurance companies are now refusing to pay out. Those poor people and their families who are chasing compensation are having to deal with unscrupulous insurance companies that even today are denying them the opportunity of compensation. I hope that those on the Government Benches will be able to tell their constituents who are suffering from asbestos-related disease that they are doing the right thing for future generations, because at the moment that is exactly what they are not doing.
Does my hon. Friend accept that asbestos is not only a hazard in the workplace? I know of numerous cases where people who just used to give their dad a cuddle when he came home in his work clothes died some years later of mesothelioma or asbestosis. Indeed, we have not yet reached the peak incidence of such cases, because it takes so long before the disease manifests itself. Will the changes being proposed today not make the problem so much worse?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is nothing more concerning for people who work with asbestos than to see their relatives catching such a serious disease as mesothelioma. Indeed, I know of one person who worked in a shipyard who had the displeasure of burying his daughter who had died from mesothelioma, simply because when he came home at night she used to sit on his knee. The dust was still there and she was swallowing it, but they did not see it and she was suffering. It was horrible to watch that father bury his daughter.
Every week in this House the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition pay tribute to our armed forces in conflicts throughout the world, and quite rightly so. However, when it comes to fatalities and near fatalities, there are more people killed or injured in the workplace than there are members of our armed forces affected in conflict areas around the world, yet we do not talk about them. Indeed, instead of talking about those people, we want to introduce legislation that will increase their number. When we talk about the armed forces and people losing their lives, please let us remember the workers who are losing their lives, of whom there will be more as a direct result of the Government’s legislation.
Does my hon. Friend agree that this debate is not just about those terrible deaths and injuries? It is also about the long-term conditions that people develop—for example, because their desk is crammed in a corner and they cannot sit at it properly, or because they get repetitive strain injuries. The Bill will make things worse for the conditions that give rise to such long-term problems. Ministers may say that the Bill will not affect deaths and injuries—we question that—but I am sure that my hon. Friend is convinced, as I am, that it will make things much worse for those long-term conditions.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, there is a school of thought that says, “If you work in an office, there are no health and safety hazards,” but that is not true. Indeed, the reality is quite different.
We also have to consider the excessive burden put on the NHS as a result of accidents in the workplace. However, we are only talking about the accidents that are reported. We need to understand that more accidents happen in the workplace that go unreported, because the individuals do not want to report them in case they get the sack. We are therefore not getting the true figure for people injured in the workplace.
With regard to mesothelioma and asbestos-related diseases, at any one time we have roughly 9 million children in school, which is a huge concern. There are also about 800,000 to 900,000 teachers in schools where there is asbestos. Should we not be looking immediately for the full withdrawal of asbestos from schools? It has been done in other countries, by the way, Northern Ireland being one. Should we not be looking for a phased removal and, in the meantime, managing asbestos properly in schools to prevent people from dying? The problem is that such diseases have a latency period of between 30 and 40 years, so people do not report them. They do not develop diseases until 30 or 40 years later, and even then they are not where they have come from.
Order. I did not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, who I know was making an important point, but I should just remind the House that this is not a general debate on health and safety; rather, we are talking about new clause 14.
I appreciate that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend Ian Lavery, who is secretary to the all-party health and safety group. He is absolutely right about asbestos and schools. He has done an extensive job of work on that and the point he makes is absolutely right.
On the overall question of accidents or fatalities in the workplace, may I remind the Minister of the extensive amount of money that it will cost the NHS to treat people who have been injured at work through no fault of their own? It is a false economy to have unscrupulous employers putting their workers in danger and then for the NHS—that is, the taxpayer—to have to pick up the bill. That is completely wrong.
On the perception of employers, I worked for a number of years for an excellent and progressive employer, Thales, in the defence industry. It looked after its employees and had a health and safety director, and people reacted accordingly. If we treat people sensibly, we get a sensible response.
I recently asked my local chamber of commerce what problems it had in creating jobs and moving the economy forward, and what barriers were caused by the current health and safety situation. It told me clearly that it did not have a problem with health and safety legislation in the workplace, and that it wanted the Government to concentrate more on restarting the economy, creating jobs, getting money back into the economy and employing people. It said that the Government should focus on that, not on going back to the old Conservative days of saying that the trade unions are the enemy within and should be dealt with accordingly.
The Minister mentioned a bottle of bleach in a cupboard, but there are occasions when children are in offices or other places where there are bottles of bleach lying about, perhaps because of a lack of child care facilities. If those bottles are not clearly identified, there is every possibility that a child could lift one up and drink from it. I would not like to think of any child suffering as a result of that. The new clause is a complete diversion from where the country has been going. There is no appetite in the country for this type of waste of parliamentary time.
Does my hon. Friend agree that when the Conservative manifesto at the last election mentioned cutting red tape, as previous Conservative Governments have, it actually meant an attack on working people’s rights in the factories and coal mines?
There is no doubt about that. We know the rationale behind it—it is just a backhanded attack on trade unions and health and safety representation in the workplace. I worked in the construction industry for many years, and there is clear evidence that where there is trade union organisation on construction sites, safety is considered paramount and the number of accidents is far lower than on non-organised sites.
I do not believe that there is any appetite for the new clause among either our constituents or our businesses, large or small. They want the coalition Government to focus on doing what they were elected to do—getting us through these difficult times, getting people back to work, getting our kids educated and rediscovering our health service. This self-indulgent new clause is not worth the paper it is written on, and there are far more important things to be discussed.
We have had impassioned contributions to the debate, not least from the hon. Members for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan). Several Opposition Members have made the point about a lack of consultation with the Opposition Front Benchers. However, the Löfstedt review involved a consultation, to which there were something like 400 submissions. That review published some of the evidence on which our proposal is based, not least evidence showing that most employers do not make a distinction between health and safety measures on a civil and a criminal basis. They are therefore more likely to waste time over-complying—the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North mentioned the problem of time being wasted—than to focus on the need to ensure rigorous health and safety so that they can reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries in the workplace. That is what is valuable, and Opposition Members have spoken powerfully about it. That is where the focus should be, rather than on over-compliance with the details and technicalities that are often put in place, which are not required and not helpful for safety purposes. Instead, they give health and safety a bad name.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that if there is under-compliance, people will have been negligent and the full force of both the criminal and civil law will be available.
“A wider problem for small businesses is that many do not feel confident that they are compliant owing to confusion about what is absolutely necessary, and so feel the need to gold-plate the law to protect them.”
Indeed, an FSB survey showed that 87% of its members supported the Löfstedt approach. Given that figure, and given that the FSB is clear about the lack of confidence caused by the current confusion in the law, I hope he will accept that it is very much behind the Government’s approach.
Likewise, EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation, has stated:
“The current compensation system is serving the needs of neither employees nor employers and is the source of many of the media stories and public concern about excessive health and safety.”
That concern has been part of our debate. Of course, the substance of when technical breaches occur is a crucial part of the change that we are making, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that there is also the problem of perception, which leads to over-complication. Both those problems need to be addressed, and they will be by our changes.
I was moved, as I am sure everyone else in the House was, by the earnest statements that Opposition Members made about how members of their families and other people they knew had been killed by industrial diseases. However, difficulties such as those that we find in the current legislation do not help to prevent such cases.
Indeed, and over-compliance and the fear of technical breach bring the wider health and safety law into disrepute. All parties support that law. As has been acknowledged, it was introduced by a Conservative Government, and it has been vigorously supported by Labour Governments over the past century or so. However, it is undermined when the impression is given that the system is over-complicated, confusing and aimed at technical, rather than substantive, breaches.
I, too, was impressed with the genuine passion of Opposition Members who talked about health and safety, but I honestly believe that they missed one fundamental point. They seem to believe that there is no cost to over-compliance with regulations, but there is not only a cost to our economy and the Exchequer, which is important at the moment, but a cost borne by the long-term unemployed and the workless. They pay for over-compliance by not having access to the workplace, which vastly decreases their life expectancy. They are the people paying the price.
My hon. Friend makes the point with great power that those who are out of work pay for an uncompetitive economy. They are the people whom we need to support.
The benefits are set out clearly in Löfstedt. Most importantly, because it is necessarily difficult to ascertain the amount of over-compliance, Britain’s health and safety system will benefit from being able to compete and focus its resources on avoiding substantive breaches of health and safety law rather than on technicalities and over-compliance. All parties should focus on problems such as death in the workplace due to negligence. The hon. Member for Paisley and North Renewfreshire—[ Laughter. ] North Renewfershire—
I would expect the focus to be on the substantive breaches and negligence that, sadly, bring about the injuries and deaths in the workplace that we all want to minimise.
The hon. Member for Paisley and elsewhere mentioned the problems with asbestos in educational institutions, and especially in further education colleges. I want to give him the reassurance that past actions will not be affected by the changes in the law, should it be passed according to the will of Parliament. Now that the problems with asbestos are widely known and documented, I anticipate that people who ignore those problems will be ruled negligent by the courts, rather than such instances merely being considered technical breaches. I therefore do not see that question applying in such circumstances.
For the benefit of Hansard, I should like to point out that my constituency is Paisley and Renfrewshire North. Concern has been expressed that this whole debate has been driven by B-list celebrities and B-list journalists on
As I have said, 87% of FSB members support the Löfstedt approach—[Hon. Members: “Name them!”] I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman asks the FSB, it will give him the names of some of those supporters. I prefer to be driven by evidence such as that survey, rather than by unnecessary concerns, given that precautions are being put in place through these amendments. The hon. Gentleman mentioned sunshine in Glasgow, and I hope that the new jobs and benefits to business that will result from the ability to remove the perception of a fear of health and safety will bring that sunshine not only to Glasgow but to the rest of the country. I hope that the new clause will reduce the effects of the perception of a need for over-compliance with health and safety measures, and that instead the focus can be placed on substantive breaches of health and safety regulations. I commend the new clause to the House.