|
| Lawrie Quinn | Health and Safety at Work (Offences) Bill |
 |
Health and Safety at Work (Offences) Bill |
 |
Mr. Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
May I extend my thanks to the House for allowing me this privilege today? The Bill's purpose is self-evident in its title. If it is successful, it will have an impact on every workplace, not only in my region, but across the rest of England, Scotland and Wales. It would also influence the best safety practices in Northern Ireland.
My message is simple and I am sure the House will agree that it is common sense. Anyone who breaks safety law should pay for that breach. Parliament has responded to the changes in workplaces over the past 30 years since the introduction of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974.
I hope to explain in a nutshell the Bill's principal provisions. It seeks to raise the maximum level of fines for most health and safety offences to £20,000, thereby allowing for more fines to reach that level. It also makes it possible to imprison employers for the most serious offences, and raises the fine for not being properly insured. If these measures receive the support of Parliament today, I hope that the Bill will then receive a fair wind and become law by the autumn.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): I take account of what the hon. Gentleman says about the ambition to increase fines and to provide for the possibility of imprisonment in the most serious cases. It is obviously incumbent on him to take account of the likely impact of that proposal. Can he tell the House what assessment he has made of the likely effect on prison overcrowding of the Bill's provision for imprisonment?
Lawrie Quinn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He anticipates the next phase of my speech, and if he will allow me to continue I shall speak not only from my professional experience in these matters, but from the perspective of my region of Yorkshire and the Humber.
In doing so, I should like to begin by reviewing aspects of the health and safety record in my region. In the past three and a half years, 29 employers in Yorkshire and the Humber have had to pay fines of more than £20,000. As the published record of the Health and Safety Executive shows, only 10 of the 291 criminal convictions for health and safety offences in my region between 1 April 1999 and 1 December 2002 resulted in fines of £20,000 or more. Most of the convictions led to fines of less than £5,000, which is why it is time for the level of fines and the tariff in the primary legislation to be examined, revitalised and increased significantly. This legislation is some 30 years old, and it is about time that Parliament attended to its duty to revisit it.
Mr. Bercow: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way again. Punishment for breaches of the kind that the Bill is designed to address should certainly be condign, but has he based the intended fines on the increase in the retail prices index in the past 20 years, or has he used a factor such as company turnover as his guiding criterion?
Lawrie Quinn: Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; one would almost think that he has helped me with my speech, because I am coming on to those matters, too. If he will show some patience and allow me to progress, I will willingly deal with any interventions that he cares to make. If he examines the issue, he will doubtless discover that workplaces in his own region of the south-east have a similar record and experiences.
In Yorkshire and the Humber, 19 of the top 29 fines were for accidents resulting in fatalities. Tragically, they included the death of one child, so these are very serious matters that I am rightly bring to the House's attention. Other offences resulting in prosecution involved amputations, paralysis below the neck, serious electrocutions, bad burns and the exposure of workers to fatal asbestos fibres. Regrettably, the latter issue, which the House considered recently, is a particular problem in my region.
Eight of the top 10 fines, four of which were for incidents resulting in fatalities, were for exactly £20,000. That begs the question: what value a life? The highest fine in the region was £400,000; regrettably, it was for a fatal electrocution.
In my constituency, there have been only six convictions during the three and a half year period of my research, with penalties ranging from a fine of £5,000 to a conditional discharge. As the people responsible for these important health and safety issues, we are giving the wrong signal.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): The hon. Gentleman seems to imply that one of the problems is the low rate of conviction, which is a different matter from the penalties that can be imposed on conviction. Will his Bill do anything to raise the number of convictions, or is his interest solely focused on penalties? If the conviction rate is a problem, can something be done about it?
Lawrie Quinn: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. My purpose is simple: to tell the whole country that Parliament takes these matters seriously. The measure is about prevention and ensuring a correct workplace culture for everyone - from the operative on the shop floor or the site to the top person in the company. I want to demonstrate that Parliament is conscious of all the problems and wants a safety culture that is upheld with due consideration across the board. The current legislation has been in force for 30 years and, as I continue with my speech, I shall explain some of the reasons that it is time to revitalise it.
Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk): I note the hon. Gentleman's point about updating the law, which is in some cases more than 100 years old. Why, however, does he want to amend section 40(9)(d) of the Explosives Act 1875? Is that really necessary?
Lawrie Quinn: I am especially pleased that the hon. Gentleman has made that intervention. His record in the House, as demonstrated at many Question Times, is proof of his interest in these matters. As he will recall, I wrote to him asking if he would act as one of the Bill's sponsors; regrettably, he did not reply positively. I am conscious that he takes these matters seriously and I commend him for that. If he will bear with me as I develop my speech, I hope that he will find that his intervention has been answered.
I commend the excellent work done day in, day out by health and safety inspectors not only in my region but throughout the country. My previous professional experience showed me that in the vast majority of workplaces there is a real sense of partnership between the inspectorate, employers, employees and trade unions and that they continue the fight against complacency, bad practice and neglect. As I know only too well, if all those dominoes of ignorance fall over at once, it can lead to serious accidents and, tragically, the fatalities that I have frequently encountered.
I have reached the point in my speech that covers the question of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who, unfortunately, is no longer in his place. As part of my preparation for the Bill, I conducted many face-to-face interviews with key stakeholders in industry, including discussions at Congress house with Mr. Owen Tudor, who is recognised nationally as a champion of health and safety policy. I am also especially grateful to one of the unions for my own industry - the railway industry - the Transport Salaried Staffs Association and its general secretary, Richard Rosser, for his personal support in encouraging me to pursue my Bill.
The House may be pleased to know that my concerns were spurred on by direct contact with my constituents. People came to my surgeries and wrote to me to explain their deep anxiety about the matters that I want to address in the Bill.
Mr. George Osborne (Tatton): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way. He talks about consulting various organisations. Has he consulted employers' organisations, such as the CBI and the Federation of Small Businesses? There is a risk the Bill would have a regulatory impact on businesses and that they might go out of business.
Lawrie Quinn: I commend Opposition Members on anticipating the direction of my speech. The hon. Gentleman may be pleasantly surprised by what I am about to say.
I have had contact not only with people from my own industry and construction, but with the CIA - not the organisation that those initials suggest, but the Chemical Industries Association. I am pleased to be serving on a fellowship with the Industry Parliament Trust and Degussa - a well-known, internationally respected chemicals company. I am particularly grateful to Dr. David Campbell of Degussa for his good common sense and advice about issues that affect the chemical industry across Europe. Along with others in construction, insurance and other major employers, he has urged Parliament to take action.
The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) asks me about the Federation of Small Businesses. On 3 January this year, I met the chairman - I forget his actual title - of the Yorkshire and Humberside regional federation of small businesses and I outlined the Bill's provisions. Those conversations helped me to prepare and draft some of the provisions.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Lawrie Quinn: Will the hon. Gentleman please allow me to continue? I have often seen those on the Front Bench take lots of interventions, and I think that I have taken 80 per cent. If he will bear with me, what I am about to say may answer his question.
Mr. Gray rose -
Lawrie Quinn: Let me have a go at answering before the hon. Gentleman asks the question.
Again, on 3 January, I met Mr. Tony Cherry of the Federation of Small Businesses, and I was able to raise the wide range of concerns of small businesses not only in my constituency, but across the region. The House will know that the Federation of Small Businesses deserves respect and needs to be commended on the very important work that is does in helping its members. I am a big fan of what it does locally in my constituency. Many small businesses in the Yorkshire and the Humber region benefit from its work.
However, the House needs to understand what the federation in my region tells me. Admittedly, I have not spoken to it at national level, but it should be borne in mind that I am private Member and that I have access on that level. The federation has told me that the vast majority of small businesses attend to their business in a very safe manner, but, like me, it is concerned about those businesses that do not meet the current legal provisions.
The House will be horrified to hear that there are many instances where people are not adhering to the current law on employers' liability insurance, simply because the premiums that insurance companies require have grossly increased compared with the value of the fines and penalties under the existing 1974 legislation. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) will know about that, as he has asked a question on that very subject.
Anyone with any common sense will realise that a provision that is 30 years old needs to be revitalised. That is why I have introduced the Bill. On the point raised by the hon. Member for Tatton, I certainly believe that small businesses in my part of the world agree with what I am trying to do.
Let me take this opportunity briefly to commend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), who is responsible for small business - and whom Mr. Cherry also commended strongly - on the pilot grant scheme for small firms to cover the costs of health and safety training. Along with many other colleagues, I am pleased to endorse the Federation of Small Businesses' campaign for the provision of 100 per cent. tax relief for capital purchases intended to increase protection and reduce risks at source within the workplace. The time has come for Parliament to respond to that agenda. Two years ago, the Deputy Prime Minister, after consultation across industry, recognised that agenda in his document on revitalising safety in the workplace, which I have used as a source for this Bill.
Let me say a brief word on the concerns about human rights, on which the hon. Member for Buckingham touched. I have every confidence - those to whom I have talked in industry have given me that confidence - that the Bill would not affect the compatibility of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 with the European convention on human rights. A reverse burden of proof provision such as section 40, to which I think the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk referred, may offend against the presumption of innocence in article 6.2 of the convention.
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Lawrie Quinn: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I wish to continue.
Recently, however, the Court of Appeal examined section 40 and concluded, on the basis of a number of compelling factors, that it represents a fair balance between the rights of the individual to a fair trial and the protection of life and limb from dangerous work practices.
Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Lawrie Quinn: I have already been generous in giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
In conclusion, I hope that the House will respond to the national disgrace of 28,000 serious accidents each year and, tragically, 300 fatalities each year as a result of health and safety breaches at work. That means that one worker dies on our sites every working day. That is a national disgrace, and it is about time that Parliament tended to it. I hope that the House will give my Bill a Second Reading.
+++
Lawrie Quinn: In 19 years of working in the railway industry I was responsible for jobs that, sadly, resulted in six fatalities. I mean it most sincerely when I say that I promise everyone in the House that if they had to attend the funerals and become involved in the inquiries and the human pain and suffering as a result of an accident at work, they, like me, would be passionate about safety. It is for those private reasons, and owing to issues in the fishing industry and others that I cited, especially the construction industry, that I have promoted this Bill. I cited the industries that are getting it right, but through the Bill I am trying to encourage those that are not committed to health and safety in the way that I believe I am.
Mr. Hoban: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. From personal experience, he has demonstrated why the Bill is important and so dear to him. All those who as employers had responsibility for their staff will share the concern that he has shown by promoting the Bill.
I was referring to the hon. Gentleman consulting employers in sectors of industry where employees are at great risk. I know from talking to employers in my constituency that there are problems not just in manufacturing but in construction and distribution. A number of employers in white-collar businesses have complained about the level of health and safety regulation and the need to introduce it in accountancy firms, for example. The issue of risk assessment and the level of regulation required are of deep concern to them. My concern - perhaps we can explore this in Committee - is about the higher penalties applying to businesses in which risk is limited but which, through some slip in understanding the complexities of health and safety regulations, inadvertently breach the rules.
Lawrie Quinn indicated dissent.
Mr. Hoban: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Perhaps he would like to explain.
Lawrie Quinn: I believe that a good employer has nothing to fear from health and safety legislation. It is those who do not adhere to such provision - the so-called cowboys - whom I am trying to encourage to change through my Bill. It is extremely important to recognise that good employers have nothing to fear from the Bill. They will find that it is good for their staff, good for their business and, in the long run, good for the development of their company.
Mr. Hoban: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but one that slightly misses the mark. The problem for many employers is that the rules are so complex and the changes to them so frequent that any breaches that they inadvertently commit are due to that complexity, not to whether they are good or bad employers. It is important that the House understands that and takes note of it, because if employers breach regulations by mistake they will be subject to a regime that is much tougher than it was before, and there is a risk that they will be unfairly penalised for mistakes that were not their fault.
+++
Mr. Bellingham: When examining the overall framework of burdens on business, we must consider what businesses must do when things go wrong. There is no question but that parts of this Bill, although it is well-intentioned, will lead to more paperwork. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby wants to encourage best practice, in which we support him, but is he not using a sledgehammer to crack a nut?
Lawrie Quinn: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the cost of regulation to business, but what is his assessment of the cost to the British economy of the 28,000 serious accidents and 300 fatalities that happen at work each year? Would not it be very good for business to bring down that burden? Would not that help the economy?
Mr. Bellingham: It is right for business to tackle that problem, but the hon. Gentleman is talking about the very small percentage of companies that follow worst practice. The overwhelming majority of our companies have best practice in place and do not have problems in the workplace. Their accident record is excellent.
Lawrie Quinn: The hon. Gentleman commended me for the research that I have done. I note from my documents that accidents at work cost British business between £11 billion and £18 billion each year - that is equivalent to between 2 and 3 per cent. of GDP. To bear down on that burden and prevent injuries must be a sensible target for the House to aim at.
Mr. Bellingham: I quite agree, and that is why it is important that the Bill goes to Committee, but it is also important to consider what businesses and business organisations such as the CBI, the Institute of Directors and the Federation of Small Businesses have to say about it. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that he had talked to the FSB in his region, but the federation nationally, although it understands the aims of the Bill, is concerned that aspects of it will bear down harshly on businesses that make what could be simply a one-off mistake, and perhaps close them down.
+++
Mr. Hoban: Let me take my hon. Friend back to a point that our hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) took from the explanatory notes about the fines that businesses might face if they do not have employers' liability insurance. Does he agree with my interpretation of paragraph 12, which is that the current maximum fine of £2,500 per day is to be replaced by a maximum fine of £20,000? Under the current regime, if a firm were found to have traded without insurance for 10 days, it would be fined £25,000, but under the regime proposed in the Bill, such a firm would be fined only £20,000. Does that not seem rather perverse?
Mr. Bellingham: It does seem perverse, and it is something that I picked up on. Perhaps the Bill's promoter would like to comment.
Lawrie Quinn: I am sure that the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) realises that the provision is simply a toolbox that is available for judges to use.
Mr. Bellingham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that point.
 |