Deregulation Bill

Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) After subsection (2) (which imposes a general duty with respect to health and safety on self-employed persons) insert—
“(2A) Nothing in subsection (2) shall preclude the Secretary of State from making regulations exempting self-employed persons carrying out certain activities from the provisions of subsection (2) or from specified regulations thereunder where it can be shown that their work activities pose no potential risk of harm to others.””

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I shall speak also to Amendment 2. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that any changes to health and safety legislation affecting the self-employed do not stray more widely than those recommended by Professor Löfstedt and that the prescribed description approach currently in the Bill is removed. They further seek to ensure that the process for constructing and implementing regulations is fit for purpose and require them to meet certain criteria, something which has eluded government attempts so far.

In his report, Reclaiming Health and Safety for All, Professor Löfstedt recommended that those self-employed whose activities posed no potential risk of harm to others should be exempt from the general duties of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. This is notwithstanding that it is generally acknowledged, including by the professor himself, that the current duties do not overburden the self-employed and that any requirements in such situations would be minimal in terms of time, cost and enforcement effort by the HSE and local authorities. But the Government accepted this recommendation, asserting that Europe adopted a more proportionate response on such matters and that it would remove unnecessary concerns over the perception of heavy-handed enforcement. Given the minimal benefits which would flow from implementing the recommendation, and the risk of confusion which any legislative change could engender, we and many others have argued for making no change—for the status quo—and this remains our preferred position. Nevertheless, we have to accept for the time being at least that this is not the position adopted by noble Lords in Committee.

The task as we see it now is to constrain the primary legislation and require a robust process for secondary legislation to see that the professor’s recommendation can be accommodated without the prospect of wider exemptions from health and safety legislation being adopted by default, mistake or otherwise—in other words, as the CBI recommends, going back to square one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, this clause has emerged out of a series of consultations during the past four years. As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, remarked in his very detailed and constructive speech, the first consultation took place in 2012 on the principle that there should be a list of undertakings prescribed in regulations that are excluded from health and safety law. That did not find large favour in the consultation. The most recent consultation has not found very large favour for the Government’s current proposals. We are finding it difficult to satisfy all those concerned. I note that the noble Lord did not quote the Federation of Small Businesses’ response to the current consultation, which is a good deal more favourable that those that he did quote. On the question of the current consultation, it took a certain amount of time; we had a lot of responses to the consultation and we had to put them all together. It has now been published and the Government will, of course, consult and consider what their response should be. We very much hope that we will have time to consult further and return to this issue before we get to Third Reading.

The Health and Safety Executive has, of course, been actively engaged in this entire process over the last four years; I stress that it is very much part of the process of policy-making. We all share the underlying purpose, which is as it should be, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, suggested in his speech, a lessening of health and safety burdens on those self-employed who are not at risk and are highly unlikely to put others at risk from their activities. That is what Professor Löfstedt suggested in his earlier report; it is part of the German system. To the noble Lord, Lord Lea, I say in passing that there are many parts of the German system of employment, training and employment protection that we would very much like to take on board. I am happy that this Government have indeed taken us a good deal further down the road towards apprenticeship training than their predecessors. There are other aspects—including some aspects of the Meister system, now that I have begun to understand that—which are clearly restrictions on trade and which we do not wish to follow. However, one cannot ever take an entire model from one country and put it into another.

There are other areas over which I have spent some time arguing with German policymakers over the years; the idea that, just because a system has worked since the 14th century, one should maintain it at all costs, is not always an idea that one wishes to promote. I was one of those involved in the British side of the argument over the Reinheitsgebot, which the noble Lord might remember. It was to do with the purity of beer and was passed in about 1351. However, we will leave the German dimension aside and return to the current issue. We apologise that the consultation document has only just appeared. The Government will respond as soon as we are ready and we hope that we will have more to say on this before we reach Third Reading.

The issue at stake is which side one takes in reducing the burden, and whether to make a list of those, as this proposal suggests, whose activities are at greater risk of putting others in harm’s way from the way they are conducted—those involved in construction or a range of other activities that involve interaction with others. Professor Löfstedt prefers a system in which there is only a prescribed list of those activities that are exempted from the current health and safety regulations. The argument that we have been having through two series of consultation has been about how one defines “low risk” and “high risk”. This is an area, after all, on which one can spend a great deal of time, having a large number of consultations without meeting consensus. I regret that we have not yet reached an entire consensus.

The noble Lord’s first proposed amendment reverses the effect of Clause 1, so that all self-employed persons continue to owe a duty under Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act unless regulations are made to exempt them from that law, whereas the Government’s proposals exempt them unless they are on another prescribed list. This approach, we argue, would increase confusion for the self-employed because there are a plethora of low-risk activities that would need to be captured to ensure that the regulations were as extensive as possible. Furthermore, each of these activities would need to be appropriately and carefully defined. This could create further uncertainty in the law and make it unwieldy for the self-employed to comply with. This is part of what the Federation of Small Business was saying in its response to the current consultation.

The noble Lord’s second amendment seeks to impose various conditions upon the making of regulations before self-employed persons can be exempt from Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The amendment would require an independent review to be conducted and considered by both Houses before the regulations can be brought into force. We do not consider this necessary. The Government amended Clause 1 in Committee so that regulations made under the power that it creates are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure before they come into force. This provides Parliament with an adequate opportunity to scrutinise and debate the list of prescribed activities to ensure they are fit for purpose.

The conditions which the noble Lord seeks to impose on the regulations can already be considered by both Houses as part of the affirmative resolution procedure if, indeed, Parliament considers those factors to be relevant. Additionally, the proposed prescribing regulations contain a commitment for their review and for a report to be published after five years of making them. That report will seek to assess the extent to which the intended objectives of the proposed change have been met. Given the safeguards already in place, the Government do not consider that a further independent review of this alternative proposal would be of any benefit.

It is imperative that self-employed persons, especially those involved in conducting high-risk activities, understand when health and safety law will continue to apply to them after this legislative amendment is made. For the reasons I have already given, we do not consider the noble Lord’s amendments to be the best way of achieving that. They are unnecessary and overly burdensome. After all, the purpose of the Bill is to reduce unnecessary burdens. The clearest and simplest way to achieve this change is by having a list of prescribed high-risk undertakings together with guidance produced by the Health and Safety Executive which will make it clear and unambiguous to those who continue to owe a duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.

I repeat: the Government are currently considering the comments just received following the 2014 consultation on the draft regulations already produced. These raise a number of important issues which the Government will consider further before Third Reading. In that context, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who contributed to this short debate. My noble friend Lady Donaghy put the matter straight about Professor Löfstedt’s views. My noble friend Lord Lea spoke about the danger of building proposals on perceptions rather than proper evidence. I thank my noble friend Lord Jordan for providing the historical context of health and safety, and the cost when it goes wrong. The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, broadened the debate a bit around the accreditation processes. I am sure we would have scope for a fuller debate around that issue. As I understand it, he argued that its application could be to an inclusive, exclusive or status quo proposition.

I understand that the Government are finding it difficult to get this right. That is why two rounds of consultation have not succeeded in doing that. We argue, given the complexities and difficulties in trying to get it right, that leaving it as it is would be the far better option.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I should point out that the first consultation did not provide much support for the noble Lord’s amendment. The second consultation criticised the Government. I merely remark that we are struggling in this area. That is, of course, why we are considering it further.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am not sure that the noble Lord’s assertion about the first consultation not supporting our position is right. It does not necessarily depend upon a prescribed list of any sort. The key point about our amendments is that they are linked to clear criteria that have to be satisfied before any change could be introduced. There are criteria around not increasing burdens and bureaucracy, representing demonstrable improvement on existing legislative requirements, and clarity and precision as to whom they apply. The two amendments sit together. The consultation that has just been gone through proves how difficult it is to have a list of high-risk activities. I struggle to understand what changes the Government could make to that process or outcome to make it fit for purpose. That is not just my view; it is the view of a raft of people who know health and safety and business far better than I do, the CBI included.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I only had a chance to read the consultation document on Friday and we are at a very early stage on that so it is very difficult to say precisely what we will conclude. I merely wish to say in the most constructive way possible that we are considering our response. We have three weeks before Third Reading and that gives us some time to consider further.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am grateful for that—and I meant Third Reading, of course, not Report. Is the noble Lord saying that we will have a chance possibly for some discussions in the interim and, if not, a chance to consider this further when we get to Third Reading? It is quite important that we have that commitment from the Government on the record, whichever stage it reaches.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, of course I am very happy to discuss this between now and Third Reading. I am not in a position to say what the Government will conclude from their consideration of the current consultation document because we are at a very early stage, but I am very happy to promise to consult further.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I am not quite sure why the Government are so pressed on this matter because that consultation finished some five months ago. I note that the Minister has been less than clear on whether, if we are not satisfied with what happens in the interim, we would be able to return with amendments at Third Reading. It would be helpful if the Minister could give me an assurance that he would facilitate that; if he cannot, we have another decision to make.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I recognise what the noble Lord is asking me to do. At this stage, I am afraid I cannot give him the absolute assurance he requires, but I am certainly willing to have further consultations, and the Government will be very happy to carry on on that basis.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

The Minister is not making it easy. I know it is not his job to make it easy. We are trying to see a way forward to avoid voting prematurely, in a sense, if the issue has not been completed. If the Minister is saying that he would be happy for us to come back at Third Reading with a proposition, if we need it, depending on what the Government do in the mean time, that would be helpful. If he is saying that he thinks that the processes in the Companion would preclude that, then we have another decision to make.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the clerks are nodding. That suggests it would entirely open after consultation for the Opposition to come back again on this issue.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am grateful to the Minister and to the clerks for nodding, in which case I beg leave to withdraw the amendment—but with notice that we look to return to it at Third Reading.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I do not have any current London government interests to declare, although I was the founding chair of the artist currently known as London Councils, which was then called the Association of London Government, for five years. I was a London borough leader for a number of years and an elected representative in London for 26 years, and for two—or perhaps four—years I was chair of a London organisation called London Waste Action.

I find Clause 44(6) to be quite bizarre, particularly in a Deregulation Bill. What I understand has happened is that the Government looked for a model of deregulating some of the complexities outside London, found that London had a system that worked and decided to replicate something like it for the rest of the country. However, because of some natural desire in the relevant government department to make things more rather than less complex, which this Bill is supposed to stop from happening, they produced a system that is more complicated than the London one. Then, for ease of simplicity and universality—quite against the principles of localism and devolution, which we understood the Government were in favour of—they decided to impose this more complicated system on London, even though London has a system that works perfectly well.

I frankly do not understand the logic of this. The model that exists in London has emerged through a London Local Authorities Bill, which was passed into legislation by Parliament; it is a locally determined scheme that decriminalises the system and provides a system of appeals which, as the two noble Lords who have spoken have indicated, has worked well since it was introduced. The Bill before us would sweep it away and replace it with a more complicated system, which would necessarily introduce a degree of delay. The process that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has described—of forming an intent, telling someone that you might have an intent, then telling them that you have had an intent and giving them an opportunity to make representations and an appeal at each stage—is unnecessarily cumbersome.

The reality is that we are talking about people who are dumping waste. They do so—I have watched it happen, taken photographs and tried to get something done about it. They turn up late at night with a van and they dump a pile of waste somewhere, on the assumption that local authorities will sort it out. The reality is that this is not a process where you need this incredibly complicated system to deal with it. You simply need to pursue those who are offending. What we will create as a result of the Bill is something that will be more bureaucratic and slower, will cost more and will go against the principles of devolution, because it was a system developed by London local authorities in the first instance.

Waste is a big matter—as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, “Never go against issues of waste”—and is the third-largest item of expenditure within local authorities. It is a massive part of the business of local government. Here we have a scheme that was developed by London local authorities and that is working well. Now the Government want to come in heavy-handed and against the principles of deregulation and devolution, and impose a complicated, overly bureaucratic and expensive system.

I am sure that the Minister will recognise that Clause 44(6) has crept in by accident, along with its accompanying Schedule 12, and agree to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and simply take them out of the Bill so that we can allow the current arrangements to continue. However, if he does not have the authority to agree that tonight, I hope that he will meet with the noble Baroness, myself and others who might be interested, along with London Councils, so that there can be a proper discussion about this before we get to Third Reading. It can then be remedied at that stage, either by the Government or perhaps by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, introducing a similar amendment and putting it to the vote.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I can be brief because of the powerful arguments made this evening by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and my noble friend Lord Harris. The points they made were extremely telling. It is incumbent now upon the Government and the Minister to try and answer why an approach that is non-localist and bureaucratic should proceed rather than the current arrangements under the London Local Authorities Act 2007. What is the problem with London that this seeks to solve? It is incumbent on the Government to say.

The Government’s focus on this area is all very well, but is it the right priority at the moment? The Minister will be aware of current figures for recycling rates that show that for England household recycling has pretty much flatlined, with a very small increase in the last figures that I have seen. There are real concerns that recycling rates could potentially decline. I would have thought that the Government should be more worried about that than tying up these bureaucratic arrangements that have been so roundly challenged tonight. I hope the Minister will be able to explain very clearly why the Government are where they are on this.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I believe that there is broad political consensus that Clause 44 is needed to introduce a fair system of penalties related to household waste collection in England. This new system will treat individuals more fairly than hitherto and deal effectively with those whose behaviour has a negative impact on residents’ local neighbourhoods, such as leaving bin bags on the street for days on end.

The clause removes the current criminal sanctions available under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The system we propose means that fixed penalties of between £60 and £80 will be available if a person does not present household waste as required and this causes a nuisance or is detrimental to the locality. The clause introduces a “harm to local amenity” test. Civil sanctions will be available to deal with behaviour such as putting waste out in a way that causes obstruction to neighbours, attracts pests, unreasonably impedes access to pavements or is an eyesore.

In Amendments 18 and 19, my noble friend proposes to retain a parallel system in London. We want to change the law so that only people causing real problems for their community will get punished—for example, people leaving bin bags on the street for days on end. The new test of causing harm to local amenity is designed to ensure this. My noble friend’s amendment would enable London boroughs to bypass this important safeguard. That would mean that if a London resident happened to leave a bin lid open or if someone threw the wrong rubbish into someone else’s recycling bin then the householder—that is, someone else—could be punished, in London.

We do not think it appropriate for people to be penalised for a first-time mistake or someone else’s careless action. They should be told what they have done wrong and have the opportunity to rectify their errors. Clause 44 introduces these changes to the Environmental Protection Act 1990. I am confident that this will not add significant burdens compared to how the current arrangements operate in practice. We know that many authorities already communicate well with their residents and seek to educate them if they have difficulties with collection requirements.