Deregulation Bill

Debate between Baroness Clark of Kilwinning and Kelvin Hopkins

Wednesday 14th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Katy Clark]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is highly concerning that the Health and Safety Executive has received such huge funding cuts and that there has been such a reduction in workplace health and safety inspections?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Yes, indeed. One of my former colleagues at the TUC, Sir Bill Callaghan, who used to be the chair of the Health and Safety Commission, was alarmed at the threats to the funding and the future of the Health and Safety Executive. Interestingly, when the HSE did a consultation exercise on this issue, a majority of respondents were against what the Government are proposing. The HSE is obviously under-resourced. I want it to be strengthened and to have more resources so that it can save more lives and prevent more injuries.

I will give another anecdote about a recent experience. There were two men working on the pavement outside my house with a diamond-edged cutting disc—the sort of machine that is used to cut stone, brick or concrete. They had no goggles, no hard hats and no ear defenders. I went up to ask what they were doing. I was not going to comment on health and safety. They were clearly eastern European and did not understand English very well. The TUC has said:

“Migrant workers are also more likely to be self-employed and are more likely to have a poor command of English, which means that they need support and guidance from the HSE. Sex out of ten Rumanian and Bulgarian immigrants living in Britain last year were working as self-employed.”

We are talking about a whole sector. Hundreds of thousands of people will be less likely to be protected by health and safety regulations and laws. I think we ought to strengthen the Health and Safety Executive and the 1974 Act. We ought to provide the resources that are needed to ensure that it is enforced properly. There are a number of points that I was going to make, but they have been made strongly by my hon. Friends.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I am sure we could find many areas where health and safety risks are not being addressed, even under existing legislation. We want such legislation to be strengthened, not weakened, but because of the logic of the situation the list of exemptions will inevitably mean that more people die or suffer injuries as a result of the clause. I strongly support my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, and other hon. Friends, in calling on the Government to abandon clause 1, accept the amendment, and return to common sense.

[Katy Clark]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which indicates that the trade union Unite recently made a financial donation to the Labour party in part of my constituency. I am not sure whether I am strictly required to make that reference, but Unite is hugely concerned—as are all British trade unions—about the Government’s stance on this matter.

As the Minister said in his opening remarks, the recommendation in the Bill came from the Löfstedt review of health and safety regulation. The Löfstedt committee did not hold a unanimous position, however, and the TUC nominee on the Löfstedt review, as well as the MP representing Labour, were clear that they were opposed to the position taken. Indeed, in autumn 2012 when the Health and Safety Executive consulted on exempting some of the self-employed from health and safety provisions, the majority of those who responded to that consultation—including a majority of the self-employed—were opposed to the proposal. Despite that, it has been included in the Bill.

The proposal was also opposed by professionals involved in health and safety. Indeed, their chartered body, the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health, stated:

“This is a very short-sighted and misleading move, it won’t actually help anyone; it won’t support business; but it will cause general confusion.”

That confusion has been illustrated clearly by the debate today, particularly on the list of types of employment, self-employment, and the sectors that would be included under the health and safety provisions, and those that might not be.

At the moment, all self-employed people have a legal duty to ensure that they protect others from harm resulting from their work activity. The strength of the health and safety legislation in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is its simplicity, and the fact that the test and legal obligation involved is simple and applies to everybody. One problem with other areas of employment protection is that it is often an employee who may receive some form of right or entitlement, rather than workers in general, which means that many people try to avoid obligations by using devices such as zero-hours contracts. The fact that the Government are proceeding down such a path for health and safety is a negative development that I believe we will all regret in years to come.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) indicated, fatality rates for those in self-employment are far higher than for those who are employed. The current fatality rate is 1.1 person per 100,000 for the self-employed, compared with 0.4 per 100,000 for employees. In part, that might be because self-employed people are more likely to be found in more dangerous occupations. However, the statistics on people with the same occupation show that self-employed people seem to have higher fatality rates.

Migrant workers are more likely to be self-employed and therefore more likely to be affected. They are obviously more likely to have a poor command of English, which probably means that they are more in need of clear guidance. Six out of 10 Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants living in Britain last year were self-employed. No statistics are currently kept on the number of people who are killed, injured or made ill as a result of the actions of the self-employed, whether relating to self-employed people themselves or the general public.

We know that the problem of deaths and illnesses associated with work is extremely significant. Worldwide, 2.3 million die as a result of incidents at work every year. Hazards, the health and safety magazine, estimates that, in Britain, work kills 1,400 people each year, and that 50,000 die in work-related incidents. Health and safety legislation is far from red tape. It has saved probably hundreds of thousands of lives since it came into effect in 1974. The Government are trying yet again in the Bill to take away that protection for the self-employed. It is a bad day for Britain. I ask the Minister to think again and to look at the legislation. I ask him to protect the simplicity of the 1974 Act and ensure that all workers and all at work are covered by it.

Royal Mail

Debate between Baroness Clark of Kilwinning and Kelvin Hopkins

Tuesday 25th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Katy Clark]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, which I hope to explore in my speech. The point that I was making 18 months ago when I previously secured a debate on this issue was that no other country in the world has attempted to do what the Government are doing here, which is to separate the mail service from the post office network. At that time, a great deal of the concern over the proposed privatisation related to the already vulnerable post office network. At the time, there were many warm words from the Government about how post offices would not suffer as they would become the front of house for the Government. Indeed, the Government said in that debate that they were looking at a range of both national and local government services that post offices could provide. They said that post offices could act as the front line for users in local communities.

One of the major reasons why the National Federation of SubPostmasters is now saying that there should be an immediate delay in the privatisation plans is that the Government have failed to deliver on that promise. Its concern is that post offices remain highly dependent on Royal Mail transactions. It says that both post offices and a stand-alone Post Office Ltd would have a highly uncertain future should privatisation of Royal Mail go ahead.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Integral to the whole postal and Royal Mail industry is the cross-subsidy, which is justified because the industry is, at least in part, a public service; it is not just a commercial service. Does she agree that if it is a public service and there is cross-subsidy, it does not fit with the private sector?

[Katy Clark]

I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katy Clark]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

It may well be possible for TNT to provide a service by undercutting in places such as London. However, it is highly unlikely that they would ever be able, or willing, to provide a similar service in areas such as North Ayrshire and Arran, or indeed in many other parts of the country. The TNT model of competition means cutting costs at the expense of decent jobs. TNT employs staff on zero-hours contracts at below-living wage standards. In London, I understand that TNT pays £7.10 per hour, which is £1.45 below the living wage. I am also advised that TNT over-hire staff to ensure that there are more than enough people to do the job every day, so that each day workers on zero-hours contracts are turned away.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

On this question of TNT and other private deliverers, they openly admit that what they provide themselves is the local deliveries, which are cheap, and anything that is long-distance they throw to the Royal Mail.