Deregulation Bill

Debate between Lord Mann and Neil Carmichael

Monday 3rd February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael]

I have not had time to flick through every clause in the Bill, but who was in power in 2004 when the regulations on the management of child trust funds were introduced, and who was in power in 2003—this is a choice example—when we were legislating on the provision of late-night refreshment?

[John Mann]

As the hon. Gentleman said, he has not had time to read the Bill, which is why I itemised, for the record, every clause and schedule that removes Tory legislation. In fact, around 80% of the legislation being removed is Tory legislation. Indeed, when the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), responds, he will doubtless wish to outline which bits he introduced in his various ministerial guises. Given his ministerial longevity, there will undoubtedly be several regulations that he was personally responsible for but now wishes to remove, and we on the Opposition Benches might wish to back him on that.

However, the Minister for Government Policy, a highly educated and learned gentleman, did not, when receiving his challenge on self-employment and safety, know what he was talking about. I cited, in relation to clause 1, what would happen with a self-employed mountain guide. He immediately jumped in to assist his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), who was struggling, because he knew that I was right and that the clause represents an undoing of the self-employed mountain guide’s employment position. There is a critical flaw in the logic of the Bill. Mountain guides require insurance, and to get it they need to demonstrate that there is a health and safety profile, and that is relevant for those who employ self-employed mountain guides who take people out on ropes. By the way, I personally managed to negotiate, on behalf of the all-party group on mountaineering, exemption from the working at heights directive anomalies that affected that profession, demonstrating that the way the industry works meant it was not safe to put that application into place. I am not, therefore, on the side of unnecessary regulation, but the protection of the employment position of those self-employed people is fundamental.

A better-known example, the single biggest civil litigation case brought by a group of workers against a Government, demonstrates the issue more brutally. That common-law action brought by workers in the mining industry, for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and Vibration White Finger, cost the Government a huge amount of money, because the people involved were employed primarily by the Government, so it was a taxpayer liability, although there were some private companies. The civil action was successful because the litigators had demonstrated that appropriate practices and procedures were not in place. If there had been proper regulation of the mining industry at the time, the cost to the health of the men forced to bring the case would have been hugely reduced, as would the financial cost to the taxpayer and other employers, which went into many billions.

That is the point of good regulation. A good health and safety procedure—for example on use of breathing equipment in a colliery or the handling of vibrating tools—would have been a mitigating factor in those processes, and a huge mitigating factor in terms of compensation. That is precisely why self-employed mountain guides require a structure within which they can get insurance and quantify it, to take them out of the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. What we are doing is leading to a lawyers’ paradise in which the agency that might employ people, and the individual, will be able to battle between one another over who is liable, if it can be demonstrated in court that particular procedures were not followed. A requirement of responsibility under health and safety law gives protection to that self-employed person as well as to the agency employing them.

Let me tell the House why I know that. When I ran a small business—as I did for many years—we had to deal with working at heights and a range of legislation, and I shall illustrate my point with some examples. A case was brought against us by an employee who had broken his foot. However, because of manual handling at work legislation and the fact that we had applied it, the case got nowhere. That was precisely because the legislation had created a structure with a sensible and rational procedure, which we could demonstrate and insist that the employee followed. When he did not follow that procedure, we could demonstrate that as the employer—with liability—we were not in fact liable for the accident.

It is a myth that good regulation damages small business. I lived with regulation day in, day out, and if we ask small businesses, we find that they nearly always object to two things: paperwork—that is always a nightmare—and cost. When small businesses complain—and when I did—it is about cost. If regulation costs a lot and someone is trying to make ends meet, it is difficult. However, regulations on manual handling at work, and health and safety legislation, do not involve cost other than training the work force. It is a miniscule cost. It is an absurdity when someone is handling heavy goods, as we were, not to have such regulation. Let me give a second example.

Anti-Semitism

Debate between Lord Mann and Neil Carmichael

Thursday 20th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[John Mann]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will answer her question later in my remarks, when I will discuss such issues.

As a long-standing and internationally recognised expert and leader in combating anti-Semitism, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) is an example to us all. I thank her and use the opportunity of her intervention to advertise the meetings we have convened throughout the Jewish community since we received the Government response to our work as an all-party committee in December.

Locations for the meetings include Liverpool, where my hon. Friend is speaking, and certainly Leeds, Manchester, Oxford and London, but I will have forgotten some of the others. Members of Parliament from all parties are participating, not just explaining our good deeds, as it were, but taking on questions, comments and feedback from members of the Jewish community. Our first such event in Manchester was a huge success. It was well attended, and the rigorous debate by parliamentarians and the general public was well received. There will be more such events, which are an important aside to our work.

We must also put on the record our thanks to various groups. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the support that I receive both indirectly and directly from the Parliamentary Committee Against Anti-Semitism Foundation, chaired by Stephen Rubin, and the support given by staff and others to the work of the all-party group against anti-Semitism. All members of the group receive that support, and I include it in my declaration.

We are grateful for and welcome the support and advice that we receive from the Community Security Trust. Gerald Ronson, Richard Benson and their colleagues ensure that we engage with the issues and are alert to the problems at all times. The trust does a magnificent job that other countries could learn from. The Board of Deputies of British Jews has worked closely with us, as has the Holocaust Educational Trust, which has involved parliamentarians and their young constituents in an effective programme to educate young people about our history. Our appreciation for those bodies is significant.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this timely and important debate. All hon. Members should oppose any form of anti-Semitic behaviour. It is our responsibility to create an environment where religious and racial toleration is part of a much bigger project. If we do not accept that everybody has a right to live as they please, we will not find it easy to deal with anti-Semitism.

[John Mann]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Our approach has always been to make it clear that when we deal with anti-Semitism, we deal with racism. Some people would be prepared—not necessarily happily—to be called anti-Semites. They would certainly love to be called anti-Zionists, which they would regard as an accolade. When they are described as racists, however, they do not like that term, even though it is accurate.

Our pitch is not that anti-Semitism is a greater evil than any other form of racism, but that it is not a lesser evil and that we will not tolerate it being seen as such. Others who deal with hatred—Islamophobia or homophobia, for example—could adopt some of our methods when advancing their fight against prejudice. With the expertise that we have built up, we are always happy to work with people who are undertaking such initiatives and, in our modest way, to share our experiences and see whether there are any common ties, experiences or lessons learned that other groups can use. There is a crossover, including in methodology.

Government responses have included the establishment of the interdepartmental working group across two Governments from different sides of the political equation. That group has involved the three largest political parties, which is testimony to our methodology. It would be easy to lose that consensus, but we said four or five years ago—not, in my case, in anticipation of losing an election and power—that our success would be demonstrated if there were a continuum should there be a change of Government. The methodology that we used and the way in which we have built cross-party consensus has succeeded, which is testimony to our approach.

Other Parliaments across the world could learn from that success. All too often, dealing with anti-Semitism has become wrapped up in political argy-bargy. Sectional interests rather than cross-party working have meant that those Parliaments have not advanced as they should have. The importance of our model should not be understated, because it gives a powerful message that Parliament stands as one. The transition to the new Government and, in a more complex way to the new coalition Government, demonstrates the proof of that model. There is a danger that that message could be lost in the good works and the successes, and people must understand why those things happen in order for progress to be maintained in the immediate future and the longer term.