Coalfield Communities

Debate between David Anderson and Matt Hancock

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I will absolutely look at that, and it is an opportunity to pay tribute to those miners who were lost and to their families. Throughout the history of mining it was always a dangerous occupation, and miners were lost in almost every community. We should pay tribute to those who died in that way.

[Mr Anderson]

The Minister is generous in giving way. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) said he was convinced that the Army was not involved, but some of us who were directly involved would dispute that on a personal level. The only way to get to the bottom of the issue, and other points that have been raised, is for the Minister to do the right thing and release all the papers. Do not hide any more papers, as the Shrewsbury 24 papers have been hidden; their campaign is now 42 years old. Release all the papers, and a lot of the arguments we have might disappear.

[Matthew Hancock]

The papers are being released as part of the 30-year rule, so that is happening under the normal process. Indeed, we would not be having this debate about the past had the Labour party not wanted to spend more time looking through papers from the mid-1980s than concentrating on how to fix the mess it created in this country.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between David Anderson and Matt Hancock

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

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.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being very helpful. Will he clarify whether there is currently—or will be in the legislation—a legal definition of what “reasonable” actually means?

[Matthew Hancock]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

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.

[Mr Anderson]

Is not the danger, though, that we will end up with under-compliance, which will lead to more people dying? I would rather waste time, as the Minister puts it, than waste lives.

[Matthew Hancock]

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.

The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) mentioned the Federation of Small Businesses, but it has stated:

“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.