Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that as a result of the failure of cases that would otherwise have succeeded, people who have not received compensation will look to the statutory authorities for their rehabilitation—for their care, speech therapy and physiotherapy—and that that will effectively constitute the nationalisation of rehabilitation?

[Mr Umunna]

I do agree. I think that describing it as the nationalisation of rehabilitation is entirely appropriate. I know that my hon. Friend, whose practice advised people who were claiming for personal injury, speaks with the benefit of huge experience.

The Government declined to undertake the review that Professor Löfstedt recommended on the restriction of the number of situations in which strict liability would apply, saying that it would be too complex. The other place rightly voiced serious concerns about that. Lord McKenzie of Luton said:

“On the basis of the flimsiest of evidence, the opportunities for those injured at work to obtain redress are being substantially impaired. We should be very clear about that. This is not ‘business as usual’. The beneficiaries, of course, will be the providers of employer's liability insurance. The losers will include taxpayers because reduced compensation will mean reduced benefit recovery.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 March 2013; Vol. 743, c. 1504.]

In less than a fortnight it will be workers memorial day, and many ceremonies, involving many Members of Parliament, will take place around the country to remember men and women who have been injured or killed in the workplace. The current framework is accepted and well established, and has helped to prevent workplace deaths and injuries. I ask the Government to reflect on the debate and the vote in the other place, and to preserve the status quo in the interests of the appropriate balance of rights and responsibilities between employee and employer in keeping the employee safe at work. We support the Lords amendment in that context.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alok Sharma]

I am pleased that we have come a long way from that time. We live in a modern society, and that is entirely appropriate.

As I understand it from the debate in the other place—I am sure that the Minister will respond to this—the Government’s mind is not closed on legislation. The fact that work is going to be done by the Equality and Human Rights Commission should also be welcomed. This is a very complex issue, and it would be unfortunate if we were to follow a route of introducing legislation without having the evidence base for it.

My final point, which was made by a caller this morning, is how much of an issue this is from the perspective of those who are second, third or fourth generation and were born and brought up in this country. I do not define myself by my caste and I suspect that there are millions like me up and down the country. I will therefore support the Government’s motion.

[Andy McDonald]

I should like to speak to amendment 38. As my hon. Friend the shadow Minister said, this proposal goes much further than the one made by Professor Löfstedt in his review of health and safety law. Professor Löfstedt referred to ending civil liability, but only in relation to strict liability, whereas these proposals will impact on the vast majority of employer liability cases, where breaches of statutory duty allegations are usually more important than negligence. In every case, the injured worker will have to prove that the employer knew, or ought to have known, that a machine was unsafe, equipment was faulty, or there had been previous accidents—something known to the employer but unlikely to be known by the employee.

It is worth noting that over 90% of health and safety regulation enforcement is through the civil courts. There are some 78,000 claims for compensation following accidents at work every year, but only 1,000 criminal prosecutions under health and safety, so if this proposal proceeds we will be singularly relying on the Health and Safety Executive to do a better job than it is doing now—and what is the likelihood of that, given the resources that are attributed to that organisation?

This is not fanciful or esoteric: we are talking about real people’s lives. Michael Adamson was a 29-year-old electrician who suffered a fatal electrocution in the course of his employment in August 2005. The accident occurred during the construction of a retail outlet when he touched a cable labelled “Not in use”. The cable was live and Michael was fatally injured, but Michael’s family saw justice because they were able to rely on the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989. If they had not been able to rely on the regulations, they would not have been compensated for the loss of a son and brother.

Mr Hill, who was a roofer and slater, fell from scaffolding during the course of his work and suffered very serious injuries resulting in incomplete tetraplegia. The accident occurred as he came down the scaffolding on a portable ladder that was not fixed or in any way secured; he fell to the ground, causing the injury. His injuries were so severe that damages were agreed at just under £2 million. The court held that there was no liability at common law, but there was liability under the Work at Height Regulations 2005. Were it not for those regulations, Mr Hill, whose injuries were so serious and life-altering, would not have received any compensation.