European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Debate between James Duddridge and Toby Perkins

3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons
Thursday 9th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Duddridge]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. Just as we will be watching the House of Lords carefully next week, they have been watching us carefully during the Bill’s passage. They will have listened to the change in tone and seen the majorities by which votes were won, and I am sure that they will reflect on that in their deliberations, doing a proper job of scrutiny as part of the whole democratic process. Mr Speaker—sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker—

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Duddridge]

I will give way, because it will give me an opportunity to get the sex of Madam Deputy Speaker right the second time.

[Mr Perkins]

The Minister might have said in his answer to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) that if he thinks the other place is unrepresentative, there is a way that we could deal with that and ensure that they are elected by the people, like we are.

[James Duddridge]

We do like elections on this side of the House at the moment, but I am not going to be drawn into reform of the House of Lords, which is slightly out of scope of the withdrawal agreement Bill.

Madam Deputy Speaker, this is an historic milestone—leaving the European Union with a deal on 31 January. It will soon be upon us, and I am delighted that we can then move on to other national priorities and help the country come together. I commend this Bill to the House.

Deregulation Bill

Debate between James Duddridge and Toby Perkins

Wednesday 14th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins]

I am grateful for that clarification. Will the Minister clarify the definition of “workplace”, as concerns have been raised that the term could be ambiguous and confusing? Could he offer some clarification and perhaps tighten up the definition and the language more generally? For example, would a Sikh working within a vehicle be considered to be working in a workplace?

[James Duddridge]

rose—

[Toby Perkins]

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman and then allow the Minister to respond.

[James Duddridge]

I am a little confused. If I read it correctly, new clause 2 relates purely to Northern Ireland and replicates what we have already discussed in Committee in respect of Great Britain. Will the shadow Minister confirm that point, as well as the Minister who seems to want to leap to his feet? I am concerned about whether we are looking at the general principles that apply to Great Britain or whether the Northern Ireland rules are different. If they are, why is that the case?

[Toby Perkins]

That is an interesting point. It is important, of course, to get clarity for Sikhs in Northern Ireland but also for Sikhs across Britain. The Minister spoke more broadly, which is important.

It has been brought to our attention that one interpretation of section 12 of the Employment Act 1989 could have the effect of permitting an employer to use the defence of having a legitimate aim when forcing a Sikh employee to wear a safety helmet in the workplace. This could undermine the new clause’s intention in a similar way to the definition of a workplace. I would be grateful if the Minister responded to that point in his summing up. I hope that the Minister will listen to and engage with those concerns. All Members—possibly with one exception—want to see this important change delivered, so I hope we can work together on a cross-party basis to achieve it.

Just as it is important to update and clarify legislation on behalf of Sikh workers, so it is important constantly to review all regulations to ensure that there are no unnecessary burdens that undermine growth. We fear, however, that little of that will be achieved in this wide-ranging—albeit limited in its positive effect—Bill. Fundamental questions need to be answered about the kind of economy and the kind of workplaces that Britain should have now and in the future.

We sometimes hear voices on the right of the political spectrum arguing that health and safety has gone mad and too far in Britain. Labour Members, however, are proud that Britain was a safer place in which to work at the end of the last Government than it had ever been before. We were proud, too, that we delivered the first Olympics in history without a single death occurring during its construction. In the last 20 years, there has been a clear downward trend in the number of fatal injuries in the workplace. In 1993-94, 300 people were killed at work; in 2012-13, that number had fallen to 148. It is proof that strong health and safety legislation, advice and guidance make a difference. When almost 150 people a year still set out for work one morning and never return home, there cannot be any cause whatever for complacency on health and safety.

Interestingly, in corresponding on Twitter with my constituents and others about the fact that we would debate health and safety legislation today, I received a response from a constituent in Derbyshire. He said, “I bet you’re not going to mention Europe when you get into that debate, because a lot of our health and safety legislation has come from Europe and we should be out of Europe so that we can get rid of all this health and safety legislation.” When I looked at his profile on Twitter, I found out that he had recently joined UKIP—so he is in the right place, at least. It is interesting that, at a time when 150 people a year are still dying at work, we should hear voices on the right saying that we need to get out of Europe so that we can get rid of all these health and safety rights and, presumably, increase the number of people who die at work. That was quite a revealing contribution.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[James Duddridge]

Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on what he has just said and confirm that it is correct? Anybody who goes on to a construction site—be they a customer, a passing individual, a self-employed person or an employed person—is subject to health and safety relating to that geographic zone. Their employment status does not matter. Whether they are a full-time employee, self-employed, a customer or a salesman, they still get that health and safety protection.

[Toby Perkins]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, who is making a disingenuous point. There might be certain legal protections associated with the workplace—or place of being; it would not be a “workplace” in some of the cases he cites—but there would be no protection as an employee whatsoever.

The issue of people in non-dangerous jobs working in dangerous environments must not be ignored. The message that health and safety is now an optional extra if staff can be got on to self-employed contracts is very serious indeed. In Committee, Labour sought to work with the Tory-led Government to find a way around these problems. We sought clarification from them on exactly what jobs will be excluded, asked for reassurance that significant protections will be in place, tabled amendments and made suggestions, but all those were rejected. If the House does not support our amendment today, clause 1 will mean weaker health and safety protection for the growing army of employed self-employed people, and uncertainty in the minds of the self-employed about whether they have obligations in the first place. The Government are sending out the message that health and safety is not something for all workplaces at all times, but something to be negotiated and traded away. This will be a slap in the face for the families of anyone killed in their workplace, including those of the 50 self-employed people who lost their lives at work last year. I call on the House to support our amendment and to say loud and clear, “Britain is safer today. We are not going back.”

[James Duddridge]

It is a privilege to speak in this debate, although I do feel we are going round in circles somewhat. Having sat on the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee with eminent Members of the Lords and Commons—plus myself—and having then had the privilege of serving on the Bill Committee and, during that time, chairing the Regulatory Reform Committee, I feel “regulationed out”, just as a number of business people do.

I want to concentrate on amendment 72, but first I want briefly to discuss Government new clause 2. I would appreciate it if the Minister cleared up the confusion over whether Northern Ireland is being treated exactly the same as Great Britain in respect of Sikhs. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) used the opportunity, completely reasonably, to look back at some of those arguments, rather than at a differential between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I remember visiting the small Sikh community in Southend as a candidate in 2004, and expecting them to raise lots of technical religious issues and issues relating to the Sikh community. However, they wanted to discuss law and order, good education for their kids and lower taxation, and did not bring up the issue we have been discussing; however, that does not make it unimportant, and it is a good one to raise. The omission of Northern Ireland in our initial considerations was not great, and it is good that the Government are now remedying that.

There was much discussion, both during pre-legislative scrutiny and in Committee, of the issue addressed by amendment 72, and the Opposition clearly disagreed with the general principle being put forward and questioned the need. I am disappointed that they could not propose something more sophisticated than just knocking out the whole of clause 1. At times I felt that there was a degree of consensus on some of these issues, so I am disappointed that a more nuanced alternative has not been found. However, using amendment 72 as a probing amendment is a perfectly reasonable strategy.