Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Wigley and Baroness Turner of Camden

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley]

I support Amendments 80A and 80B tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, to which I have added my name, as I have to Amendment 81 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. Each of these amendments seeks to overhaul the provisions contained in Clause 62, as we have heard, which threatens to turn the clock back to Victorian times for injured workers’ rights to compensation.

The clause has rightly been criticised in earlier stages of the Bill, and was only introduced on Report in another place. By amending the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the clause will place the burden of proof on to the injured employee who in future will have to provide evidence that his or her injury has resulted from their employer’s negligence.

As the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers has made clear in its appeals to the Government, the clause, if passed, would be highly advantageous to negligent employers, who of course control the workplace and equipment, and are more familiar with the workings of the business. Moreover, it is completely unfair to put this extra burden on an employee who is injured, particularly in cases where the employee would have been rendered unconscious and hence possibly unable to remember details of the incident.

As I understand it, the clause would also impact on families of employees who have been killed in an accident, who would obviously be at a disadvantage in gathering evidence against the employer. If I have wrongly interpreted that, perhaps the Minister could correct me but, if I am right, how on earth can the Government justify that position?

Amendment 81 would delete the clause in its entirety, which would obviously be the most favoured option for those of us opposed to these provisions. Amendment 80A would negate the clause to all extents and purposes and so, if Amendment 81 is not passed, I urge noble Lords to support Amendment 80A. Finally, Amendment 80B would require the Government to conduct a review, before the provisions of the clause can come into effect, of all duties imposed by a statutory instrument containing health and safety regulations and to determine whether they should be actionable.

Clause 62 brings in sweeping and unnecessary changes to health and safety duties at work. The Government must surely pause before introducing such provisions, to ensure that any employer who breaks the law pays the correct penalty.

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, Amendment 81 stands in my name. At Second Reading and in Committee, I opposed this clause. The Government have introduced some amendments to the original, but they do not alter the Bill substantially. It would still alter the Heath and Safety at Work Act in a way that is not to the advantage of an injured worker. Section 47(2) of the Act says:

“Breach of a duty imposed by health and safety regulations shall, so far as it causes damage, be actionable except in so far as the regulations provide otherwise”.

In practice, I am advised by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, to which reference has already been made, that this means that if a worker is injured and can prove than an employer has breached a statutory duty, he is entitled to claim compensation. This is the basis upon which many workplace injury cases are usually brought.

The law is clear and well understood. It is the basis on which health and safety legislation has been drafted and passed by Parliament. This is the provision which the Government seek to alter. Without this provision, the injured person would be obliged to rely on the law of negligence, which would be much more difficult. Take the case where a worker has been fatally injured after working with faulty equipment. At present, the family need only prove that there had been breaches of statutory regulation in order to claim compensation. Under the provisions of the Bill, the family would have to go much further and prove that the employer knew that the equipment was faulty and did nothing about it. That would be much more difficult than proving that regulations in place to protect the worker had been breached.

According to the Government’s own figures, the provisions in this clause will affect 70,000 cases in England, Wales and Scotland. That is quite a number of injured workers. There are many industries—construction is one—which are inherently dangerous. I urge noble Lords to look at London: it has masses of construction sites, full of scaffolding and workers working on them. The workers who regularly endanger their safety on these sites deserve proper protection. If the Government are really concerned about safety, they should strengthen the HSE instead of cutting resources and thus cutting HSE inspections, which are so necessary to maintain health and safety at work.

This clause, if enacted, will encourage employers to abnegate their responsibilities and rogue employers will get away with it. What about insurance? Employers are expected to have employers’ liability cover. It is fairly clear that insurance premiums will increase as a result of this legislation. Do the Government really believe some of the assertions in the trade press that we are becoming a compensation culture with many unjustified claims? I do not think so.

I once worked in the claims department of a large insurance company. Injured workers then had quite a tough time sometimes getting adequate compensation for their injuries. I thought at the time that they needed representation in order to get justice. Unions, of course, provide a skilled service for their members in such situations; my own union has a good and important legal department. However, not everyone is in a union. Even now, workers individually sometimes have difficulty in securing compensation. With this clause enacted in legislation, it will be much worse: the burden of health and safety will be transferred from the shoulders of well resourced employers to vulnerable workers, which is unjust and unfair. It takes the law on workplace safety back to Victorian times, beyond the landmark 1898 law, under which it became possible to claim compensation where employers had breached their statutory duty.

I oppose this clause; it is unfair and unjust and in the end will cost the taxpayer much more in support for injured workers unable to achieve compensation. I am opposing it because I want to send a message to the Government that they should not attempt to interfere with established procedures which have served people well and are respected. They should not attempt to do this, and therefore I oppose the clause completely.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Wigley and Baroness Turner of Camden

Monday 23rd January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, I support my noble friend in her amendment, and also urge that industrial injuries disablement benefit should not count towards the cap. This benefit is not a cost benefit or an income-replacement benefit; it is a form of no-fault compensation for the victims of industrial diseases and accidents. Counting this benefit and other benefits paid under the industrial injuries scheme towards the cap would, in effect, reduce the compensation paid to the most needy and vulnerable victims. It is no more reasonable than counting criminal victims’ compensation would be, and it should certainly not be included. As my noble friend indicated, many employees who sustain industrial disease or injury often spend a lifetime in pain as a result. It is unreasonable to expect ordinary working people, who are caught in an environment that is not of their own making and in a situation for which they are not responsible, to have their compensation—an industrial injury disablement benefit—counted against the cap under welfare. I fully support everything said by my noble friend, and hope that the Government will respond benevolently to what we are saying.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I rise briefly to speak in support of the amendment. I do so against the background of the industrial injuries and diseases that we are very familiar with in Wales, from coal-mining, slate mining and many other industries. I know that all industrial parts of these islands have similar experience.

If the Government’s line on this whole issue is that it is unreasonable that people who are working earn less money than some people get in benefits and that the changes are justified for that reason, surely this exemption makes all good sense. People have an industrial disease or injury by virtue of the fact that they have been hardworking members of the community and get this as a result of their efforts of working. What is more, in all probability they will not be in a position to return to the workforce, so that argument disappears as well. I realise that special pleading for any one group will cause difficulties—and it may for the rest of today’s debates—but this instance stands out as clear-cut and deserves sympathy.