Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Lord Clinton-Davis Excerpts

Wednesday 14th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Marland, who regards this Bill as exemplary. In no way do I think that he would be regarded as immune from myopia. I do not think that some of this Bill is worthy of support. Notwithstanding its controversial aspects, the Bill has been introduced without adequate supervision. There has been no review in which the regulatory provisions imposing strict liability have been properly examined, as recommended by the independent Health and Safety Executive. I ask the Minister: why not? Why has he refrained from legislating on that important aspect of any Bill? Of course, this is not the only controversial provision. Indeed, there are so many others but I simply do not have time to mention them all.

I am particularly concerned about Clause 61, about which the Government have either had no discussions or have summarily dismissed the anxieties voiced by, among others, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, which concluded that health and safety provision would be put back by much more than 100 years. Indeed, the only time that the coalition reacted to this provision was when the House of Commons debated the Bill on Report. Why? Were the Government surrendering to the representations of the insurance bodies and their right-wing allies? Where do the Liberal Democrats stand on this?

In effect, the Government are now saying that employees will have to establish that employers have been guilty of negligence. Will it not make it infinitely more difficult for them to prove valid claims? They and the legal aid bodies will be exposed to more complicated, more protracted and more expensive claims. Employers will more easily get out of their proper civil law liabilities. Moreover, insurance premiums are bound to increase. In this probable event, do the Government think that that will be beneficial? If not, why do they not say so?

The Government opine that the so-called burden of health and safety requirements will be reduced by Clause 61. What evidence do the Government adduce for that proposition? I believe none whatever. Simply to assert that Britain will be able to compete more effectively in the world markets will not suffice. Evidence is important and evidence is lacking.

The TUC has also made some valuable criticisms of the Bill, all based upon the claims that the Bill will reduce the employment rights of working people. We have heard something about that today. Yes, I am troubled by the fact that employers will find it much easier to fire employees. How can that benefit the country as a whole? Compensation awards for unfair dismissal are being reduced. Whistleblowers will be disproportionately hit. It all combines to support the view of those who proclaim that there should be a radical re-examination of the situation.

What is being claimed by Government in support of the provision that fees for employment tribunals should be introduced? Will this not have the effect of preventing many employees pursuing their just remedies? I submit that it is wholly unjust.

Legal officers, as they are described in the Bill, who will have no real training in employment law, are to preside over some employment rights. Is this worth while? Will it improve the law? This is another point that is missing from the Bill.

The Government ought to consider very carefully what outside bodies say. At the moment there is no evidence that the Government are willing to listen. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says in this regard. I hope that he will be rather more constructive than he was in his opening remarks.