Deregulation Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Earl of Lindsay

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lindsay (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, I should note my current involvement with the Better Regulation Strategy Group, the independent body that advises the present Government on better regulation. I should also note, as it is relevant to my perspective on the amendment, my former involvement in the two predecessor bodies that advised the previous Government—the Better Regulation Commission, of which I was vice-chairman, and the Risk and Regulation Advisory Council.

Based on my experience of those three independent bodies advising government on better regulation, I question the need for Amendment 44A. If the proposed duty as set out in the Bill were to override regulators’ powers of protection, compromise their decision-making or supersede their existing regulatory duties—or if there were any ambiguity about those three important assessments—I would wholly understand the need for the amendment. But in my judgment that is not the case.

The proposed growth duty will not override or cut across regulators’ powers of protection. It is simply an additional factor for regulators to take into account when they are making their decisions. It will not compromise their decision-making and, as I understand it, it will not supersede regulators’ existing duties. It will not remove the responsibility of businesses to comply with what the law or regulations require of them. The duty will therefore not compromise the independence of regulators. They will continue to have decision-making autonomy, exactly as they do now. Regulators will therefore remain free to decide how best to incorporate the duty into the decision- making involved in performing their primary statutory functions.

I have been looking at the published draft guidance that the Government issued in January, and I believe that it makes very clear many of the points that I have just mentioned. I understand that the guidance is continuing to be developed in discussion with the regulators so that it can be finalised before the policy comes into force. That guidance makes it clear that the proposed duty does not encourage regulators to reduce protections or to ignore non-compliance.

For the benefit of noble Lords who have not seen the published draft guidance, Non-economic Regulators: Duty to Have Regard to Growth, I draw their attention to the beginning of chapter 2, on page 5, which sets out the purpose of the duty. The very first sentence reads:

“Regulators exist primarily to protect people or achieve other social or environmental outcomes”.

That is an important headline sentence, which reminds us of the principal duty that regulators must subscribe to. The second paragraph on that page says:

“The duty requires that economic growth is a factor”—

not the factor, but a factor—

“to be taken into account alongside regulators’ other statutory duties … The duty does not set out how economic growth ranks against existing duties as this is a judgment only a regulator can and should make … The duty does not oblige the regulator to place a particular weight on growth”.

Those are only a few extracts from one page of the draft guidance, but they set out a clear proposition in terms of the importance of maintaining the balance between regulators having regard, as appropriate, to growth and their maintaining protections. As I see it, the proposed duty will complement existing duties and will not override or cut across regulators’ powers of protection, nor their responsibilities for ensuring protection. It will be for a regulator to weigh up the desirability of economic growth against each of the other factors it must consider, and tailor its approach accordingly.

In some circumstances those factors will sit well together; in others the regulator will need to decide how much weight to afford to each factor for the best outcome. On the basis of the wisdom that was developed through the Better Regulation Commission, the Risk and Regulation Advisory Council and so on, I believe that the regulator’s expertise means that it is best placed to decide what weight it is appropriate to afford growth in the relevant circumstances.

I therefore disagree with the insistence of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that only Parliament can rank those factors. In a good regulatory regime there should be discretion for the regulators to make judgments between parallel factors, because they can take account of the exact circumstances in which they are regulating. Therefore, although the growth duty clause as drafted requires that growth be put on the same footing as other duties—in other words, it enables regulators to have regard to growth—it also ensures that essential protections are maintained.

We should not lose sight of the importance of the new growth duty and the benefits that will flow from it. Regulators spend some £2 billion each year on regulatory activities, and still to this day more than half of businesses see regulation as a barrier to their success. The duty is required to clarify the fact that growth is an important factor for regulators to take into account, and it will ensure that regulation is delivered in a way that best supports growth. It will also ensure that the protection intended to be given by regulations is still delivered. On those grounds, although I understand the motives behind the amendment, I genuinely believe that it is unnecessary, and that the balance will be not only maintained but enhanced by the Bill as drafted.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we have heard three excellent and very sober speeches on the amendment, for which I thank noble Lords. There is only a small difference between the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and myself, on behalf of the Government. We are talking about balance—the balance among a range of factors that we wish regulators to consider.

Deregulation Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Earl of Lindsay

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lindsay (Con)]

My Lords, I should declare an interest as being the chairman of the United Kingdom Accreditation Service, because it is from that perspective that I want to speak to the noble Lord’s amendment. It is by virtue of that role that I am familiar with the intentions of Professor Löfstedt when he compiled his report and with the concerns that lie behind the amendment. Equally, I am familiar also with the thinking that has gone into the way in which the Bill, and particularly this clause, are drafted.

I firmly believe that accredited certification of occupational health and safety management systems could support almost every scenario. It could certainly support and benefit the status quo; it could certainly support and benefit the approach that Professor Löfstedt has proposed, which is one of positive exclusions. Equally, and probably importantly in terms of the House’s consideration of this amendment, it could also support and benefit the clause in terms of positive inclusions.

Accredited certification can provide the regulator with an authoritative assurance that the businesses concerned have good health and safety policies, procedures and controls in place. It allows organisations to earn recognition for their efforts to manage their own health and safety obligations. Accredited certification could act as a safety net for those industries, businesses and professions which may be excluded from the Act. In other words, if in doubt whether a business, profession or an industry should be within the ambit of the Act, one can safely err on the side of deregulation by putting in place a system of voluntary or mandatory accredited certification to underpin safety standards.

The accredited certification would be carried out against the recognised standard for occupational health and safety management—that is, BS OHSAS 18001—which is soon to become more formally recognised by the international standards organisation through its adoption as ISO 45001. The certification bodies would need to be accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service, ensuring their competence to carry out the certification.

There may be concerns that a management system approach may not be suitable for very small businesses. However, the standard is flexible enough to be adopted by all sizes of organisation. Alternatively, size limits could be introduced whereby all businesses in a sector above a certain threshold would be required to comply.

Certification to BS OHSAS 18001 is now widely available in the United Kingdom. Some 40 certification bodies are accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service to offer certification to the standard. It is estimated that more than 10,000 businesses are now certified as complying with the standard, and that figure is growing.

BS OHSAS 18001 was developed by a range of organisations specialising in health and safety management, certification and end-user businesses. It was co-ordinated by the British Standards Institution, the national standards body for the UK. The standard would bring immediate benefit in workplace safety to the status quo. It would bring benefit to the approach that Professor Löfstedt proposed. Most importantly, it would certainly benefit and support Clause 1.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, this clause has emerged out of a series of consultations during the past four years. As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, remarked in his very detailed and constructive speech, the first consultation took place in 2012 on the principle that there should be a list of undertakings prescribed in regulations that are excluded from health and safety law. That did not find large favour in the consultation. The most recent consultation has not found very large favour for the Government’s current proposals. We are finding it difficult to satisfy all those concerned. I note that the noble Lord did not quote the Federation of Small Businesses’ response to the current consultation, which is a good deal more favourable that those that he did quote. On the question of the current consultation, it took a certain amount of time; we had a lot of responses to the consultation and we had to put them all together. It has now been published and the Government will, of course, consult and consider what their response should be. We very much hope that we will have time to consult further and return to this issue before we get to Third Reading.

The Health and Safety Executive has, of course, been actively engaged in this entire process over the last four years; I stress that it is very much part of the process of policy-making. We all share the underlying purpose, which is as it should be, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, suggested in his speech, a lessening of health and safety burdens on those self-employed who are not at risk and are highly unlikely to put others at risk from their activities. That is what Professor Löfstedt suggested in his earlier report; it is part of the German system. To the noble Lord, Lord Lea, I say in passing that there are many parts of the German system of employment, training and employment protection that we would very much like to take on board. I am happy that this Government have indeed taken us a good deal further down the road towards apprenticeship training than their predecessors. There are other aspects—including some aspects of the Meister system, now that I have begun to understand that—which are clearly restrictions on trade and which we do not wish to follow. However, one cannot ever take an entire model from one country and put it into another.

There are other areas over which I have spent some time arguing with German policymakers over the years; the idea that, just because a system has worked since the 14th century, one should maintain it at all costs, is not always an idea that one wishes to promote. I was one of those involved in the British side of the argument over the Reinheitsgebot, which the noble Lord might remember. It was to do with the purity of beer and was passed in about 1351. However, we will leave the German dimension aside and return to the current issue. We apologise that the consultation document has only just appeared. The Government will respond as soon as we are ready and we hope that we will have more to say on this before we reach Third Reading.

The issue at stake is which side one takes in reducing the burden, and whether to make a list of those, as this proposal suggests, whose activities are at greater risk of putting others in harm’s way from the way they are conducted—those involved in construction or a range of other activities that involve interaction with others. Professor Löfstedt prefers a system in which there is only a prescribed list of those activities that are exempted from the current health and safety regulations. The argument that we have been having through two series of consultation has been about how one defines “low risk” and “high risk”. This is an area, after all, on which one can spend a great deal of time, having a large number of consultations without meeting consensus. I regret that we have not yet reached an entire consensus.

The noble Lord’s first proposed amendment reverses the effect of Clause 1, so that all self-employed persons continue to owe a duty under Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act unless regulations are made to exempt them from that law, whereas the Government’s proposals exempt them unless they are on another prescribed list. This approach, we argue, would increase confusion for the self-employed because there are a plethora of low-risk activities that would need to be captured to ensure that the regulations were as extensive as possible. Furthermore, each of these activities would need to be appropriately and carefully defined. This could create further uncertainty in the law and make it unwieldy for the self-employed to comply with. This is part of what the Federation of Small Business was saying in its response to the current consultation.

The noble Lord’s second amendment seeks to impose various conditions upon the making of regulations before self-employed persons can be exempt from Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The amendment would require an independent review to be conducted and considered by both Houses before the regulations can be brought into force. We do not consider this necessary. The Government amended Clause 1 in Committee so that regulations made under the power that it creates are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure before they come into force. This provides Parliament with an adequate opportunity to scrutinise and debate the list of prescribed activities to ensure they are fit for purpose.

The conditions which the noble Lord seeks to impose on the regulations can already be considered by both Houses as part of the affirmative resolution procedure if, indeed, Parliament considers those factors to be relevant. Additionally, the proposed prescribing regulations contain a commitment for their review and for a report to be published after five years of making them. That report will seek to assess the extent to which the intended objectives of the proposed change have been met. Given the safeguards already in place, the Government do not consider that a further independent review of this alternative proposal would be of any benefit.

It is imperative that self-employed persons, especially those involved in conducting high-risk activities, understand when health and safety law will continue to apply to them after this legislative amendment is made. For the reasons I have already given, we do not consider the noble Lord’s amendments to be the best way of achieving that. They are unnecessary and overly burdensome. After all, the purpose of the Bill is to reduce unnecessary burdens. The clearest and simplest way to achieve this change is by having a list of prescribed high-risk undertakings together with guidance produced by the Health and Safety Executive which will make it clear and unambiguous to those who continue to owe a duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.

I repeat: the Government are currently considering the comments just received following the 2014 consultation on the draft regulations already produced. These raise a number of important issues which the Government will consider further before Third Reading. In that context, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.