Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Julian Smith and Iain Wright

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Julian Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Wright]

I have missed the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) over the course of the summer, and I remember with affection some of his interventions in Committee. I welcome him back; it is good to see him.

[Julian Smith]

I reciprocate the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. Does he agree with the Government that perception is important in health and safety legislation in almost the same way as in employment law? Does he claim that there is no issue with perception, and does he totally disagree with what the Government are trying to do?

[Mr Wright]

On perception, there is a feeling in the country—it is often fuelled by the media—that the so-called health and safety culture is inevitably a drag on economic growth and recovery. We must, however, set the context, and I want to make an important point to the Minister. The TUC estimates that every year at least 20,000 people die prematurely as a result of injuries, illnesses, or accidents caused by or in their place of work. That is far too many. The shocking figure from the Health and Safety Executive of 173 workers who were fatally injured at work often excludes a large number of other work-related deaths, but that figure alone means that 173 people went to work and did not come back, and that should not happen in a modern, compassionate society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wright]

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will move on.

There are benefits to business from an effective and proportionate health and safety regime. As I mentioned, a safe and healthy work force can be a productive and effective work force. The Institution of Occupational Safety and Health estimates that, by having an effective health and safety regime, employers could save up to £7.8 billion, individuals could save up to £5.12 billion, and the economy, each and every year, could save up to £22.2 billion. It is important that health and safety is classed not as unnecessary and bureaucratic, but as conducive to good, effective and sustainable economic growth.

It is with those figures in mind that we should consider the merits of health and safety regulations and legislation, and the long-established premise of strict liability. As we know and as the Minister said, Professor Löfstedt reported in November last year. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who speaks for the Opposition on health and safety, welcomed many aspects of Löfstedt’s review. As my right hon. Friend said, most of it was positive, sensible and evidence-based, which is not a phrase we have heard often in deliberations on the Bill, and reinforced the view that health and safety is not a burden.

Over a number of years, the Health and Safety Executive has undertaken simplification exercises, which had support from both trade unions and employers. There are 46% fewer regulations than 35 years ago, and there has been a 57% reduction in the number of forms used. There is a perception that firms, and particularly small firms, spend disproportionate time on health and safety to the detriment of business and growth, but the average business spends 20 hours and just over £350 a year on health and safety risk management and assessment, according to the Minister’s Department. Such activities therefore do not exactly take up a huge amount of businesses’ time.

[Julian Smith]

The shadow Minister might be about to say this, but does what he just said mean he will get on the side of the small business in Britain, as the Government are doing, and vote with them on new clause 14, or will he oppose it?

[Mr Wright]

The Labour party has always been on the side of small businesses, and Labour Members will continue to be so. In the 13 years of Labour government from 1997 to 2010, 1.2 million businesses were created, whereas 50 businesses each and every day are folding as a result of the current Government’s macro-economic polices and the double-dip recession. I shall therefore take no lessons from the hon. Gentleman.

Professor Löfstedt suggested that the UK needs a greater understanding of risk. We need to reject tabloid claims and the perception at the centre of the debate so far that health and safety legislation has somehow gone too far. He also recommends that education is provided to employers, workers and students on the dangers they face. However, the short section on strict liability in Professor Löfstedt’s report offers no argument or evidence for changing the current legislative arrangements, but rather an assumption that strict liability is unfair on employers. In fact, Löfstedt refers to three cases, but two were not strict liability cases, so would not be affected by the new clause. The assumption that the Government are guilty of making—they have been guilty of making many such assumptions on employment rights—is that the removal of that type of liability in some cases will boost the economy. That is economically illiterate, however, and not the solution that businesses, including small businesses, want to get us out of the double-dip recession that has been made in Downing street.

I mentioned the accusation of there being no evidence—we have heard that phrase time and again during the consideration of the Bill. There has been no consultation on the measure, which means that there could well be unintended consequences, because the Government have not sought the expertise of those who deal intimately with such issues. There has been no impact assessment on the measure, but can the Minister say why not? What are the expected costs and benefits of implementing the measure, which is supposed to liberate businesses to concentrate on economic growth? Does he have tangible, quantifiable, empirical evidence to support such claims?

Health and safety regulation has always contained a balance between different types of obligation—the majority are qualified by the phrase “reasonable practicability”, but some are strict. Although Professor Löfstedt had the insight that “reasonable practicability” has underpinned health and safety regulation, it has never been the key concept. A central point of the Opposition’s argument is that the balance has existed since the Factories Act 1937, which has been mentioned. In that three quarters of a century, the balance has been generally considered fair. Removing it risks taking us back to a 19th-century mill owner’s view of health and safety, which the Opposition could never support.

If someone is injured because of a defect in a piece of equipment provided by their employer, the law is that it is no defence for the employer to say that they had a proper system of maintenance and inspection. Most people would think that right and fair, so it is unfortunate that the Government do not. They believe it is unfair for an employer to be the subject of civil action and pay compensation when they are not at fault, but what about fairness and justice for the injured worker? They are not at fault and did not ask to be injured. The new clause would remove the right to compensation for workers in those circumstances unless they can prove fault. The Government seek to place the burden on vulnerable employees, but the employer, and not the employee, selects and provides the work equipment. Regardless of fault, it is therefore the employer and not the employee who creates the risk. That is important.

UK Trade and Investment

Debate between Julian Smith and Iain Wright

Thursday 15th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Wright]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. UKTI needs to look closely at where those high growth opportunities will be and ensure that, because of possible historical links, we exploit those opportunities first. I tabled a written question about how we are to double trade and what targets are in place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North said—perhaps the Minister will comment on this—there are no stated bilateral trade targets for Egypt, South Korea, Bangladesh, Indonesia or the Philippines. The Minister said that UKTI provides a degree of service for UK companies seeking to do business, but that is not good enough. We need to be much more focused and determined to ensure that British firms can sell their goods and services in the areas that are going to grow the global economy in the next half century. We need a framework in place to allow that to happen.

I became interested in the course of the debate about where UKTI, with finite resources, should be concentrating those resources. The hon. Member for South Thanet and others mentioned the need to focus on small firms and make sure that we get in at the beginning to ensure that we can benefit and help to shape and mould their ambitions for exporting opportunities as they grow. I keep mentioning the CBI, because its report is excellent. The CBI states that UKTI could perhaps be more effective if it focused on mid-sized companies with real potential for high growth. They may already be exporting, but they require assistance to break into new markets.

I am interested in what the Minister has to say about what we need to do to identify, embrace and nurture medium-sized enterprises—those companies with a turnover of about £10 million to £100 million, with up to 500 employees, and, as I said, real potential for high growth.

[Julian Smith]

I had a micro-enterprise that traded here and had a subsidiary in Singapore. We delivered within two years hundreds of thousands of pounds of tax revenue back to the UK. Please do not underestimate the power of the 4.5 million micro-enterprises to deliver tax revenue as part of the export drive that the Government are undertaking.

[Mr Wright]

I certainly bow to the hon. Gentleman’s superior experience, but my point is that, with finite and reducing resources, it is absolutely essential—I will come on to this—that today’s debate is about the effectiveness of UKTI. Where do we get the biggest bang for the taxpayers’ buck? Is it from small enterprises or more medium-sized enterprises that have got opportunities for export and growth? Where will we get the best return for the British taxpayer and hence future prosperity and growth?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wright]

I certainly saw reports about Sir Richard Branson being at the event along with George Clooney. My point is this: when the Prime Minister, the leader of our Government, goes out on state visits, what is he doing to win trade for Britain? What is he going to come back with? It is important that he takes a delegation of business leaders and wins awards and contracts for Britain.

[Julian Smith]

This Prime Minister has done more on UK trade trips than any other Prime Minister in recent history. He has been to Brazil, China and India, and the Foreign Secretary has been on a trade mission to Australia. This Government’s track record on the matter is exemplary.

[Mr Wright]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. I know that there was a high-level and high-profile delegation to India just after the Prime Minister assumed office, but one-offs and PR stunts are not going to win business for Britain. The effort needs be sustained, co-ordinated and done at the highest possible level over a long time.

I am excited about the opportunities that British companies—dynamic, innovative and competitive as they are—have in the competitive, 21st-century global economy. We will miss a trick if we do not have a sense of urgency and determination in ensuring that we grow our businesses in the export markets. I hope the Minister will have a greater sense of urgency and determination to ensure that British goods and services are sold around the world, thereby providing us with greater wealth and prosperity.

BBC (Proposed Cuts)

Debate between Julian Smith and Iain Wright

Thursday 1st December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Julian Smith]

The hon. Gentleman refers to the limited fat in local BBC stations. Len Tingle, who followed me around for a day last year, persuaded his wife to accompany him on a day out in the Dales and an evening at a B and B. She ended up carrying all his bags and acting as cameraman in the evening. I think that that shows how hard local journalists are working day in, day out.

[Mr Wright]

I entirely agree.

Another aspect of the local identity and distinctiveness to which I have referred is the fierce passion for and loyalty to an area. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), in a far more eloquent speech than I could ever make, presented the case for ensuring that local radio stations are partisan in that sense. It is significant that BBC Tees’s strapline is “proud of where we live”. The station’s championing of new renewable and offshore wind technology in the area is second to none, and its advocacy of the area during the loss of the steel plant in Redcar and its unconfined joy when the plant was sold as a going concern to SSI showed that it would always fight Teesside’s case. While he is still in the Chamber, let me pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) for ensuring that the plant and its workers remained on Teesside.

Much of that passion for and pride in the station derives from its staff. The presenters, journalists and production staff at BBC Tees are all professionals, and fiercely loyal to the region. Most of the presenters were born and raised in the area, which has given them a knowledge of and affinity with the area that is unsurpassed in any other broadcasting medium. Both Ali Brownlee and John Foster, the former breakfast show host who now presents the afternoon show, were born in Middlesbrough. Neil Green, who currently presents the drive-time show, was born in Hartlepool, was a teacher in the area, and still lives in my constituency. It is important to bear in mind that those people use the same services as their listeners.

Such loyalty and passion, however, are not the same as slavish devotion. The quality of the journalism on the station is extremely high and challenging. I can certainly say, as an elected representative, that we are not given an easy ride when being questioned by presenters. I certainly was not given an easy ride this week when I was questioned about the autumn statement, along with the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales). The station’s passion for ensuring that local politics is viewed in the context of what we do here in Westminster is very valuable.

In the run-up to last year’s general election, all the candidates for the seat that I now represent went to the BBC Tees studio, where we were questioned and challenged by Neil Green, who also fielded calls from listeners and prospective voters for well over an hour. It is difficult to think of another widely used, indeed universal, medium that would allow such direct democratic challenge, such professionalism, and such reach to and interaction with our constituents. Because many people in my area do not have access to the internet, e-mail or social media, BBC local radio is the sole means by which citizens can question people in positions of authority or people who are standing for election.

[Mr Wright]

I entirely agree. As I said earlier, BBC local radio can serve as a champion for particular issues.

In the time left to me, I want to outline my concerns about the cuts to local investigative journalism. The “Inside Out” programme provides in-depth and important local journalism. It is comparable in quality and scope to Granada’s “World in Action” in the 1970s and 1980s, and no other current broadcaster or programme, with the possible exception of Channel 4’s “Dispatches”, is able to match it. In my region, its exposé on Southern Cross care homes and investigation into the supply chain used by the businesses of Mike Ashley, the owner of Newcastle United, were important and showed investigative journalism at its best. The 40% cut to that programme will allow those with powerful vested interests to sleep more soundly in their beds, which should be avoided.

There is, of course, cross-fertilisation between the two elements of the BBC. Local radio investigations and points put forward by listeners can feed into television journalism, and vice versa. The quality of local provision will fall as a result of these cuts, and licence fee payers in my area will receive a poorer service.

[Julian Smith]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the recent policing scandals in Cleveland and my area of Yorkshire would not have been analysed properly had it not been for BBC local radio and television news?

[Mr Wright]

I entirely agree. The BBC revealed the costs of those police investigations and challenged those in authority on such financial issues.

The world is getting much smaller in the sense that it is becoming ever more interconnected. People have access to news events across the world, such as the Arab spring, in a matter of seconds through BBC World Service and News 24, as well as through broadcasters such as Sky and CNN. Paradoxically, and somewhat perversely, the BBC cuts proposals will result in less local provision, but that is equally important. That should be avoided. One of the BBC’s great strengths is its local output, and that should be protected as much as possible.