Deregulation Bill

Chris Williamson Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins]

A substantial part of my speech will deal with precisely that point, because I think it represents perhaps the most fundamental flaw in the Bill. When the Minister presented his idea, he was probably told that it was good news that authors would no longer be suing themselves because their chairs were the wrong height. However, the real impact of the Bill is exactly as my hon. Friend has described it.

When people ask the Government what they will do about zero hours and the exploitation of workers, the Government misunderstand the question. The easy sacking of workers and the reduction in their rights is not an accident of Tory policy; it is Tory policy. It is precisely what Tory Governments have always been about. Of course, this is not actually called a Tory Government, but it certainly feels pretty much like one. This is what Tory Governments have always done, and they should be honest about that, rather than claiming that they are acting in support of small businesses or in anyone else’s name.

I was a small business owner myself for five years before I entered Parliament, and I entirely reject the idea that impoverishing workers and stripping them of their rights was done in my name or at my request. That just shows how out of touch the Government are. It is very unfair of them to introduce measures such as this, and then claim that they are doing it in order to support small businesses. In fact, they are doing it because it is what Tory Governments always do.

As the Minister said, this idea originated in Professor Löfstedt’s report on health and safety regulations, which was published in 2011. We supported most of the report’s recommendations, but we think that the professor failed to understand the nature of the British labour market when he said that the rights of the self-employed in Britain were greater than those granted by some of our European competitors, and, in particular, failed to appreciate the huge growth in false self-employment in this country to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) referred.

At the end of the last Government, the World Bank said that Britain was the easiest place in Europe in which to set up a new business. That is a key feature of our economy, and in itself it is something to be celebrated. Indeed, the idea that people should pluck up the courage to go it alone and start a new business, should challenge the established order and should find new ways of innovating and different ways of doing things—adopting the values and attributes of entrepreneurs—is very closely aligned with the history of the Labour party. Challenging the established order is precisely what the Labour party has always done. Of course we support people who want to set up their own businesses, but the healthy push towards starting up new firms that was established under Labour—with the spirit of adventure coursing through the veins, and ambition bursting through every pore—is very different from the growing move towards bogus or forced self-employment that we have seen under the present Government.

Unite has drawn attention to the fact that many workers in the care sector have been pushed into false self-employment, with the result that people on whom much of the fabric of a decent society depends can be sacked without warning, receive no holiday or sick pay, have reduced benefit entitlements, and are denied access to employment tribunals. They do not want to set up their own businesses or become entrepreneurial, but they are being told that the only way in which they can care for the old people for whom they have cared for so many years is to become self-employed. It is important to recognise the difference between those who want to be self-employed and those who are being forced into it.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Does this not demonstrate how out of touch the Conservative party and its Liberal Democrat poodles are with the views of the general public? Last week, the results of a Survation poll clearly showed that the overwhelming majority of the British public do not want public services to be delivered by the private sector; they want public services to be delivered by directly accountable public servants who are democratically available for scrutiny by locally and nationally elected politicians.

[Toby Perkins]

That is an important point. The exact nature of the alliance that was formed will have to be left to the history books to judge. Were the Liberal Democrats willing accomplices who wanted to support everything that the Tory Government did, or were they, as my hon. Friend put it, poodles who were simply excited by the idea of ministerial office, and who decided to join in when they did not really support what was being done?

I suspect that, as we head towards the 2015 general election, a whole array of Liberal Democrat Ministers will suddenly emerge and say, “They made me do it. I did not really want to pursue that policy. There were tough decisions to be made.” They will try to claim some little bauble: “We may have tripled tuition fees, VAT may have gone up and workers’ rights may have been taxed, but we got something out of it.” We shall see whether, when they bring their agenda to the 2015 election, they throw off the clothes that they have worn for the last five years and claim to be different. What an exciting time we have to look forward to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it serves nobody’s interests to indulge in this race to the bottom and force people into this bogus self-employment, when the reality is that it is an excuse for exploitation? If people have got less money in their pocket, they have less money to spend in the wider economy. That has a negative impact, and we end up in a downward spiral and a situation whereby, as the figures I have seen today from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs show, in the last 12 months this so-called economic miracle that we are seeing under this Government has resulted in the top 300,000 seeing an increase in their income after tax, but the rest—29 million taxpayers—have seen a reduction. Bogus self-employment and forcing people into self-employment is contributing to that.

[Toby Perkins]

My hon. Friend makes an important contribution and he is right. The issue of bogus self-employment, and the broader issue of the vision this Government have for our economy, is working very badly for people in our constituencies and working quite well for a small number at the top. It was ever thus; this is what the Conservative party was set up to do. It was set up to ensure that the rights of a privileged few were protected and to try to convince enough of the lower orders to buy into it in the meantime. That is why the Conservatives did not want the lower orders to have the vote for 100-odd years. We all know where they are coming from, and no doubt if they could get rid of the lower orders having the vote now, they would do it again.

[Toby Perkins]

That is another important dimension. We are in danger of straying slightly from our amendment, but it is important that we see this amendment in the context of the economy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) also made an important point about the impact of all of this on our economy. Not only does it undermine employment rights and leave his constituents and mine worse off, but it also hits taxpayers in the pocket, because according to the Treasury’s own estimate, around 300,000 workers in the construction sector alone are effectively in bogus self-employment. That costs the Treasury more than £380 million every year so there is less money going into our public services and into the public coffers because of this issue. This is far from being a construction-site problem, however. That has happened over many years, but in a whole variety of areas—care workers, as spoken about earlier, bookkeepers, sales agents, and from the factory floor to the shop floor—staff who look to all of us to be employers are legally self-employed. While bogus self-employment has previously been predominantly a tax and rights issue, an exemption in respect of health and safety only increases the incentive for employers to pursue this route as a model of recruitment, reducing safety in the workplace, making it an optional extra rather than a hard-won right.

That changing environment places huge responsibilities on us as law-makers, and they must not be overlooked. Labour in government maintained a flexible workplace, not always, I have to say, to the delight of colleagues across the movement who would have liked further protection. We recognised there was a balance to be struck, however, and we still do, but we did that in a way that aimed to ensure that protection against the exploitation of individuals was not sacrificed in exchange. If these Tories really were the workers’ party, they would understand that a flexible workplace that works against the public interest is bad for Britain and bad for business, too.

Returning to this new clause, no self-employed person has ever been prosecuted or threatened with prosecution only for risking their own health. Given that the Bill’s intention is that only people who pose no risk to anybody will be exempt, there will be no practical impact on businesses or individuals. The Health and Safety Executive consulted on Ofsted’s proposals in 2012 and the majority of those responding to the consultation opposed the idea. All in all, I and many other small business owners would recognise the picture painted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, which has said that many low-risk, self-employed individuals are

“de facto, already exempt…They will never be routinely inspected. And they are not going to sue themselves if they have an accident!”

If there are no known cases of the self-employed suing themselves and no prosecutions that are being prevented, this is a solution in search of a problem to solve.

The problem it in fact attempts to solve is the perception that this Government have over-promised and under-delivered on regulation. Whenever we hear the Minister defend this, he does not have a lot to say about anyone who will positively benefit. What he says is that there will be a perception that there is less people have to do before they become self-employed. Well, he can say that to the carers, who are being told that they are now self-employed when looking after the old lady they have been looking after for the past 20 years. He should ask whether that removes a disincentive to them setting up a business. That is the reality of what is happening under this Government.

[Chris Williamson]

rose—

[Toby Perkins]

I never cease to be delighted to hear from my hon. Friend, so I will give way to him again.

[Chris Williamson]

I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech immensely, and I had the privilege of serving on the Committee with him. Does he agree that this is a very wide-ranging Bill? A hell of a lot of effort has been put into it by Ministers, yet it has achieved so very little. Has there ever been a Bill where so much effort has gone in with so very little impact and positive outcome for the British people?

[Toby Perkins]

That is an interesting point, and it brings to mind a gentleman who was a team mate of mine at Sheffield Tigers rugby club. He had a huge neck and giant shoulders—he was a great big bear of a man—but from the waist down he had, short, very thin legs. He was one of those people who, when he stood up, apparently shrank, so he earned the name “the giant little man”, and this is a giant little Bill. There is huge scope to it and very little that is got out of it at the end—but I am digressing slightly.

That was, in fact, precisely the point I was about to come on to in my speech, so I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. Alongside the minuscule benefit and very real consequences for the bogus self-employed, there is also the confusion that is likely to be caused and the messages that sends about health and safety as being an optional extra, rather than something businesses should always attend to.

Entrepreneurs and micro-business owners might wrongly believe they are now exempt from health and safety obligations towards clients and visitors to their premises. We know that that is not the reality of what this Bill does, but it is all about perception. If people are now being told, “If you’re self-employed, you don’t have to worry about health and safety,” it is unsurprising if that is the explanation people hear.

In its evidence to the Joint Committee, the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health described the decision to exempt certain self-employed individuals as “unnecessary, unhelpful and unwise”. It foresaw a lowering of standards and a lack of clarity about who was, or was not, covered.

The current system is clear and there is no compelling reason for this change. There is no list of self-employed martyrs brought to the courts because of badly adjusted blinds in their offices, who, having fought the issue to the highest court in the land, have now decided that, because the glare on the screen was a bit bright and it hurt their eyes, they will sue themselves. This group of people does not exist as one for us to stand up for in this place, so there is no compelling reason for this change.

For all the reasons I have outlined, we think this is a much-mistaken clause and our amendment would simply remove it. However, even if the Government do not listen to all the voices arguing against the clause in its entirety, there are serious and important flaws in its drafting that they really should look at. It will be interpreted—the Solicitor-General admitted as much in Committee—such that the exemption from the exemption will be based on whether someone’s work is in a job that is considered to pose a risk to them or to others. However, it pays no attention to whether they are responsible for the safety of their workplace. So a self-employed person working in someone else’s workplace, who to all intents and purposes appears to be employed, is in fact self-employed, has no say in the quality of the health and safety regulations administered there, and would be exempt from protection. The clause makes no reference to whether they are responsible for the safety of their workplace—it assumes they would be, but as we have heard, that is not the case—or to whether the workplace itself is dangerous. So, someone who is in a dangerous workplace, but in a job that is considered not dangerous, will not be covered. For example, because a sales agent selling construction goods on a building site on a self-employed basis is not in a dangerous job, they would be exempt from protection on health and safety grounds, despite working in an environment in which an average of almost 60 people have died every year during the past 13 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson]

The hon. Gentleman would have more credibility on the concerns he is articulating about the barriers facing businesses starting up if he had supported the amendment in Committee, which called for a review of the licensing regime. For example, someone setting up a restaurant needs to comply with seven or eight different licences. Surely that would be a more appropriate approach to take, rather than undermining health and safety.

[James Duddridge]

It would be an additional benefit to look at these things sector by sector, as the Better Regulation Commission is doing—and is reducing regulation. However, I fear I am straying slightly, as we have done today, away from the pure health and safety issues. The hon. Member for Chesterfield kindly took an intervention on the concept of who is protected on a building site and I must admit that I am still confused. There is a case for stopping people being self-employed from an employment rights perspective—we can debate that, although not today. But although these bogus self-employed individuals take themselves out of a certain type of health and safety liability, by being on the site—by being in the care home or on the building site—they are subject to health and safety rules. There may be a case to make that those rules are too weak or that they are not the same as in an employment relationship, but people are still subject to them.

As I said at the start, something more nuanced could have been proposed, because there is a risk that people do not set up businesses because they are concerned about the overall level of bureaucracy. The hon. Gentleman prayed in aid the World Bank, saying that we are already at the cutting edge for being able to set up businesses, but if we do not look to move forward and constantly improve, as our competitors are doing, biting at our heels, we will fall behind in business growth, in growth and in employment. I say that on a day when I learned from the BBC that employment is at its highest level since 1971, when records were first kept. There is no health and safety protection if one does not have a job. Getting people into employment is a step in the right direction, and getting people involved in high-quality jobs with high-quality health and safety is a further improvement, but it is still a stepping stone. For those reasons, while I support Government new clause 1, I would vote against amendment 72 if it were pushed to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

There are times when one legislates on the principle and then rolls out the practical implications, but I agree with my hon. Friend that in this instance, because of the legislation’s significance and because the detail is so important to whether it is viable, in the three years when the consultation was supposed to be going on we could have drilled down into the detail and then come back with effective legislation, which would have achieved some element of consensus. Instead we have absolute confusion, and in health and safety matters that means risk. I will vote for the amendment, but I deeply regret the way in which the legislation has been brought forward. The risks that will be incurred will affect many of us, throughout all these different industries, but more broadly, as self-employment now grows, not only will self-employed workers be put at risk, but the general public as well. That is why the Minister needs to think again very seriously.

[Chris Williamson]

I rise to speak in support of amendment 72 and I associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on the proposals for the Sikh community, which are a welcome step.

I do not know whether it is because the Solicitor-General is behind the proposal, but to me it represents a lawyer’s charter. My hon. Friend has already made the point that the prescribed list simply adds to the confusion rather than providing clarity. I am a simple chap, an ex-bricklayer who certainly benefited from the health and safety regime, and I would like to know what is wrong with the present legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) referred to the futility of the proposition in terms of those who are self-employed and not at any great risk, but who have never been prosecuted or are likely to take action against themselves in any event, but my real concern is that the Government are creating significant confusion, which will put people at greater risk.

Other hon. Members have made the point that self-employed people are on average twice as likely to die at work as employed workers. At a time when 4.2 million people are self-employed that is a growing concern, and not just for the individuals who are putting themselves at greater risk and who will go to work one day, as my hon. Friend said, and never return. That is devastating for the families of those individuals, and it is a complete waste of human life. In crude monetary terms, it has a negative impact on the economy, because their productive life is lost to the economy.

We have to take account not only of those who are more likely to die, but of those self-employed workers who are more likely to sustain an industrial injury, and this proposal will make matters worse. We have already spoken about people being forced into self-employment and bogus self-employment. People who are in effect employed earners but are forced into a self-employment do not benefit from the protections accorded to employed earners, and that should be a matter of concern for all of us.

I shall take my previous life in the construction sector as an example. Because of the confusion, we do not know from what the Government have said whether self-employed earners working in a domestic setting will be covered, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has pointed out.

[John McDonnell]

We have only one copy of the list—that is how we have been treated today—but we shall share it. I will give one example, and perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to respond to it. According to the list, construction is covered overall, and a number of activities are listed under construction. However, there are sites where there is no construction going on but there is painting and decorating, which is not listed. If no construction was going on and some self-employed painters and decorators—there are a large number of them—turned up to work on the site, they would not be covered because their work would not be construed as construction. However, painting and decorating is actually quite a risky occupation, for the painter and decorator and for the public, because of the use of ladders, scaffolding and so on.

[Chris Williamson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is potentially an incredibly hazardous occupation, for the very reason he outlines: the use of ladders, scaffolding and so on.

[John McDonnell]

Painters and decorators are not covered, but people on high wires in circuses are. This is getting bizarre.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson]

That is the point, is it not? The beauty of the existing legislation is that it is very clear. Even a former bricklayer like me can understand it. We know that everybody is covered by it. The Government are saying, “We are the great deregulators and we want to free up the self-employed to become great entrepreneurs”, but the reality is that they are creating a huge amount of confusion and putting people at risk, which will put a greater burden on our national health service. The reality is that more and more people who are forced into bogus self-employment schemes will find themselves at much greater risk.

I mentioned in an earlier intervention the concerns and fears of an individual setting up a business for the first time about the impact of health and safety obligations. The Government had the opportunity in Committee to do something that would have genuinely benefited those considering setting up in self-employment for the first time: reviewing the plethora of licences—150-odd—that local authorities are responsible for. I gave the example of a restaurateur, who must comply with eight or nine licensing regimes. Yet the Government had no sympathy and I believe they even voted against the proposal. I actually tabled another amendment, which regrettably has not been selected, to increase the period in which a review could take place, which we initially called for in Committee.

The Government try to give the impression that they are on the side of entrepreneurs and the self-employed, but the reality is quite the opposite because they are putting people at greater risk. The race to the bottom reduces people’s terms and conditions, and this all has a negative impact on the wider economy. There are 4.2 million self-employed people in the country, but instead of its being a cause for celebration I am concerned that many of them are earning very low incomes. That has a negative impact on the wider economy, because they have less money in their pockets to make a difference. The Prime Minister constantly goes on at PMQs about the number of new jobs being created, but he is silent about the fact that many of them are part time or involve zero-hours contracts, and self-employment comes into that. Many people are forced into self-employment because they have no alternative. They are forced to accept a pittance of a wage.

We also know from recent statistics that there has been a huge increase in the number of people who cannot afford to pay their rent because they are on such low incomes and so are having to claim housing benefit.

As my hon. Friends the Members for Chesterfield and for Hayes and Harlington have made clear, the amendment is absolutely sensible. The Government have been singularly incapable of providing any legitimate justification for their proposal. They are going to create a lawyers charter. The most significant growth that will come out of this is for lawyers, because it is bound to lead to challenges through the law courts. Is that what we really want? I would suggest not. What is wrong with the existing legislation? It is straightforward and simple. We are not all lawyers like the Solicitor-General; perhaps he can understand it with his great intellect. As I said, I am just a simple bricklayer, and I can understand the current legislation, but I cannot understand what is before us today.

--- Later in debate ---

I sometimes wonder about the Labour party. Does the party want there to be work? The Government are creating jobs at a very fast rate indeed: 1.4 million jobs in the private sector since 2010, despite all the prognostications that the opposite would happen. Some 70% of those jobs are full-time and they are transforming the country. That is partly to do with supporting entrepreneurship, lifting burdens from business, reducing taxes and making it easier to get out there and do these things. Surely that is in the interests of our country. The Labour Government’s record is one of rapid decline in world competitiveness from ninth to 22nd. When we think of the mess that the country was in in 2010 after their foolish stewardship of the country’s finances—their long-term Prime Minister, Tony Blair has said that after 2005 they got it wrong—we really have to ask whether we should take lectures from such a party on a deregulation measure.

[Chris Williamson]

The Solicitor-General says he wonders about the Labour party, but I wonder about him. Listen, if the Solicitor-General is so concerned and thinks that this is such a wonderful piece of legislation and the prescribed list is so clear, why does he not think that painting and decorating is a hazardous occupation? Does he not think that maritime is a hazardous occupation? If this is the prescribed list will he tell us, as I challenged him to in my contribution, what is not on it? Painting and decorating is not on it and that is clearly a hazardous occupation. What else is not on it? He says that there are no hazardous occupations that are not covered by the list.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. This is becoming a speech. It is supposed to be an intervention. We have heard the speech once and we do not need to hear it again.

[The Solicitor-General]

On some of the early points that were made, this is a matter—

[Chris Williamson]

Will the Solicitor-General give way?

[The Solicitor-General]

Hang on. This is a matter of exempting people in safe occupations from the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. We are doing that for self-employed people because we want to encourage business. The process being followed to do this is very carefully thought through. The proposed prescribed list will ensure that self-employed persons conducting undertakings where they are most at risk of serious injury or fatality will not be exempt from the law. There is, therefore, an element of the debate that is just not part of the Government’s policy or the Bill. The hon. Gentleman mentions painting and decorating. That is covered, because the description of construction, which is on the list, includes painting and decorating. I will come on to some of the other points that have been made in a minute.

The measure has been described as having particular reference to bogus self-employed contracts, but that is not the case. This does not change the law: no employment law will be changed by the Bill. A number of other points were made. It was suggested that we should look only at the evidence of consultants—the institution that was mentioned—who give advice to people on health and safety. It is the job of members of such institutions to go out and give health and safety advice to people who want to set up in business and be self-employed, so it is not a shock to find that they are not keen on having 1 million or 2 million people exempted from the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Equally, we are told that this is a lawyers charter. Lawyers give advice and they are not saying what one would expect—that this measure will help them in some way.

[Chris Williamson]

Will the Solicitor-General give way?

[The Solicitor-General]

No, I am going to continue for a moment.

I was asked about support from organisations with a business background. Yes, they support these provisions. [Interruption.] Well, it is true; they do. There are people who benefit from having an extensive health and safety law that enables them to go out and give advice about these issues, and clearly they have a point of view. Those who want to represent small businesses are in favour of this measure because it helps people to set up in business.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor-General]

The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 has existed for a good period of time and done important work, but it is reasonable to exempt from it people who are in safe occupations or are self-employed after an academic study has found no reason for them to be regulated. What is wrong with that? It beggars belief that the party that is supposed to be campaigning for work—the Labour party, is it not?—is opposing the entrepreneurship that would make more work available.

[Chris Williamson]

Will the Solicitor-General give way?

[The Solicitor-General]

I have one or two more points to make, and then I shall see if I can give way again. [Interruption.] All right, I will give way.

[Chris Williamson]

The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the provisions are clear and that there is no confusion, but clearly there is confusion. Why cannot the Solicitor-General see it? I thought he was a solicitor with a legal brain, so surely he must be able to understand it. [Interruption.] He is a barrister, even; my goodness me. Can he not see that this is not an exhaustive list, and that it will therefore create confusion? There is no problem with the legislation as it stands, so why is he trying to change it? He is in search of a problem that does not exist.

[The Solicitor-General]

There certainly is confusion on the Opposition Benches because Opposition Members simply do not understand deregulation or entrepreneurship. If we say, “Here is a list”, they say, “Well, it is not defined enough.” and when we explain that there will be a full consultation on all the definitions, they say, “But that is even worse”. How can it be worse? It is obviously a process that has been going on in a measured and sensible way. It is designed to deregulate, to enable business to thrive in our country and to enable us to continue the improved growth we are seeing. It is a way of enabling employment to continue to grow in our country.

The hon. Member for Chesterfield talked about looking at the polling, but he should look at the polling, because the people of this country are starting to turn to the Conservative party and to recognise the achievements of the Conservative-led coalition. It is the Labour party that should be worried, because not a single one of its policies would help this country. Labour has a negative approach; in Committee, no solid or positive proposal was made.

A deregulation Bill that saves £300 million, made up of many small measures, is something that Labour Members simply do not understand. They say that this or that measure will not save that much money, but when all the measures are taken together, we see a change—a transformation. This Bill is about reducing burdens on business, and about the future of our country.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 2 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Amendment proposed: 72, page 1, line 1, leave out clause 1.—(Toby Perkins.)