Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Lord Faulks Excerpts

Monday 22nd April 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, the Government introduced at a late stage in the Commons proceedings, and with very little consultation, a clause to remove civil liability from health and safety offences. This would mean, as has already been explained, that a worker who is injured because their employer broke the law by failing to carry out a statutory obligation would find it much more difficult to claim compensation for the injury. It would also make the law much more complex. As a result, many workers or their dependants will lose out on compensation, causing further injustice.

The Government have claimed that they introduced this amendment to implement a recommendation from the recent Löfstedt report into health and safety regulations. However, Professor Löfstedt has since made it clear that this is not what he proposed and the government amendment went well beyond what he recommended.

We voted to remove the clause in a move that was welcomed by victims’ groups, the legal profession and health and safety professionals. The Commons, however, has voted to disagree with our amendment. I do not know why. We should maintain the position that we took up before; it is reasonable and fair. We have to remember that there are many industries anyway where there are inherent dangers to workers. Where there are statutory regulations, those should be applied and the workers should be able to claim if those statutory regulations are not complied with, which is what the present law provides for. We have been advised by lawyers concerned with these employment issues that if the amendment we are proposing is not carried and the Government’s position is maintained, we would be taking the law and the employment right consequent upon it way back beyond the beginning of the previous century. That really is quite unacceptable, and I hope therefore that your Lordships will agree to maintain the position that we took before as far as this clause is concerned.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I was unable to attend previous debates on this clause but I have had an opportunity of reading what was said in your Lordships’ House and in the most recent debate on the amendment in the other place last week. I declare an interest as a practising barrister with experience in this area of the law and as a former special adviser to the last Government on an inquiry into the compensation culture.

Noble Lords, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, in a number of thoughtful contributions to the debate, suggested that to legislate on the mere perception of a compensation culture was to do so based on a “flimsy structure”. He accepted that there had been a problem of overcompliance with health and safety but he said that there was now a problem with undercompliance. I am unsure of the basis for this last assertion and it is not reflected by the report of Professor Löfstedt or by the report two years ago by my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham. Both identified a perception of a compensation culture, as did the report produced by Parliament when I was a special adviser. This cannot be dismissed on the basis that to respond to it is simply to pander to myths. There is a strongly negative effect on employers and indeed on schools and local authorities which feel the need to set up elaborate systems to combat largely hypothetical risks. Overcompliance costs time and money and makes it more expensive and less attractive to employ anyone, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises.

The aim should surely be to ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to protect the health and safety of employees, but at the same time employers should not be overburdened with unnecessary and elaborate bureaucracy which can be the enemy of enterprise. I accept that this is a very difficult target to hit and I confess to being a little nervous about how much is left to regulation. However, I feel much more confident in saying that the debate, principally in the other place, was positively riddled with hyperbole. Both there and in your Lordships’ House the opposition Front Bench used the expression “a near impossible burden” when describing the prospects of a claimant bringing a successful action for injuries at work. I simply do not accept that. A breach of a regulation will be regarded as strong prima facie evidence of negligence. Judges will need some persuasion that the departure from a specific and well-targeted regulation does not give rise to a claim in negligence.

Many regulations are sensible, comprehensible and can be effectively interpreted both by employers and the courts, but this is not always the case. For example, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992 were revoked and re-enacted by similar regulations in 1999. Originally they did not give rise to a civil course of action—they now do. The regulations are extraordinarily wide and extraordinarily vague and seem to require extremely elaborate arrangements, ostensibly for health and safety purposes, in particular as to risk assessments. What a risk assessment is and how you prove you have done an appropriate one is problematic. It seems to require quite a number of employees simply to be devoted to compliance with the regulations rather than actually doing the underlying work.

It was said in the other place that this prospective change in the law was “not about compensation” but about “not being killed” and that the change was not simply a matter of red tape. I am afraid that I do not agree with the burden of those comments. Nor are the Government seeking to turn back the clock a hundred years. Rather, these provisions are a response to an overreaction to an entirely appropriate aim which is to ensure health and safety at work. The problem of overreaction is having a negative effect on enterprise. To borrow the title of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Young, the aim of this change in the law is to restore common sense and common safety. I support the Government’s position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we remain steadfast in our opposition to the Government’s position, and fully support the case led by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, and spoken to in support by my noble friend Lady Turner and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. We are dismayed that parliamentary process has allowed so little time for consideration of this matter in the House of Commons and that more than a century—in fact, nearly 150 years—of settled law is being overturned on the basis of such brief deliberation.

The arguments to remove Clause 61 from this Bill have not of course changed in the few weeks since we last debated the matter. Nor have the serious consequences which will ensue should we not carry the day. Removal of the existing right of an employee to rely on a breach of health and safety legislation represents a fundamental shift, and one which is to the detriment of employees.

We heard before, and again today, that having to prove negligence will provide a more difficult route to getting redress. The burden of proof will shift to employees, or to the family in the case of a fatality at work, there will be a requirement for more evidence-gathering and investigation, and the incurring of greater costs. In that respect there will be no lessening of the regulatory burden on employers. This change goes well beyond the issue of strict liability which the Government’s own impact assessment accepts is likely to give rise to only a small number of claims.

The issue of a near impossible burden referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, I think in our previous debate, was not applied generally but specifically to those circumstances where strict liability has hitherto been in force.

[Lord Faulks]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The point is that there is always a claim, as I am sure he will agree, in negligence. Whether there is a breach of a regulation will be strong evidence of a departure from an appropriate standard of care. All that is changing is simply that it is not actionable per se. I would like the noble Lord to say why he adheres to his suggestion that there is a near impossible burden.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

The point I sought to make is that in some circumstances it has been accepted, I believe, that there is a near-impossible burden. That is not necessarily the case, but even the route to proving negligence is a greater burden than the route to proving breach of statutory duty, which is what operates generally at the moment. The “near-impossible burden” description was particularly applied to those areas where strict liability applies in circumstances related to the provision of equipment, where purchased, maintained and sourced by the employer, and the employee is in a disadvantaged position in seeking to prove negligence.

The impact assessment recites the belief in a compensation culture which is having an impact on the behaviour of business. However, even if true, why on earth should it be a justification for reducing access to justice for employees injured or made ill by their work? This cannot be a rational basis for acting. Why should employees bear the strain of tackling these perceptions? Where is the evidence that unreasonable claims are being made and indeed settled? If there are fewer claims, the beneficiaries, as we have heard, will be the insurance companies, the providers of employer liability insurance. Where the Government are particularly remiss is in failing to see this from the perspective of the individuals who are injured at work, because one way or another they and their families will bear an increased burden. They may be forced to place greater reliance on the health, caring and benefits system. What does the Minister say to those families whose circumstances may have been eased by receiving compensation but who face a life on benefits in the future? Health and safety impacts on the lives of millions of individual employees every day of the week. It is not some distant concept related to red tape.

There is undoubtedly some overcompliance with health and safety requirements, but there are ways in which this can and is being tackled. The register for consultants is one route that the HSE is seeking to apply. However, there is also undercompliance. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, asks what my evidence is for that. Let us look at the data. People are still being killed at work and hundreds of thousands of people are injured every year. I spent three and a half years as Minister for health and safety. We know those sectors where there is a struggle to get compliance. It does not operate across the board. There are some very good employers who try to do the decent thing, but there are some who do not. This undercompliance has been made worse by restrictions on funding, by limiting the regulator’s role in proactive workplace inspections, and by the portrayal of health and safety as red tape and its undermining by myths that bear no relation to reality. Promoting the changes in Clause 61 will also send the wrong message to those employers who would undervalue health and safety and cut corners, safe in the knowledge that their chances of being held to account are diminished. This is to the detriment not only of employees but of those many employers who do the right thing.

The Government’s position is untenable. It is changing the settled legal position of over a century on the basis of anecdote and perceptions. It is making it harder, sometimes impossible, for employees to access justice when they are injured at work. It is undermining the cause of health and safety. The Government have failed to consult properly on this or make reference to the EU. They offer an inappropriate remedy to any perceived compensation culture which can and should be addressed by other means. Most of all, they are careless of the personal cost to those who are damaged by their work. That is why we support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

The noble and learned Lord makes a fair point. Employers will continue to need to have to defend themselves. The issue depends entirely on the particular case in hand but this government action redresses a balance that is long overdue.

[Lord Faulks]

Before the Minister sits down, I am sure he will agree that, while some of the regulations have the defence referred to by the noble and learned Lord, quite a few of them do not provide this defence at all and there can be automatic liability without any fault. Does he agree that one of the problems of the perception of a compensation culture—there was perhaps an inadvertent hint of this—is the fact that these changes are not welcomed by safety consultants or those who are concerned to gold-plate some of these regulations?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I am grateful for the points made by my noble friend. That is a very helpful intervention.