HC Deb 11 July 1969 vol 786 cc1805-12
Mr. Waddington

I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 3, line 27, leave out ' to imprisonment not exceeding three months or'.

Mr. Speaker

I suggest that with this Amendment we take Amendment No. 11. The two are linked.

Mr. Waddington

The subject of imprisonment was raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland), who has asked me to express his regret for not being able to be present today because of duties in his constituency. He apologises to the sponsor of the Bill and to all hon. Members for his absence.

All of us on this side of the House consider imprisonment to be a totally inappropriate penalty for failing to insure in breach of the terms of the Bill, and the sole purpose of the Amendment is to make a fine of £200 the only penalty. The Bill at present provides for imprisonment up to a period of three months. It is surprising to see such a provision, when it is generally accepted that short terms of imprisonment are not only very much out of fashion but run quite counter to modern trends in penology.

There are several reasons for saying that imprisonment is inappropriate in such a Bill as this. First, as I have just said, to impose it would be to fly in the face of all modern trends in penology. Secondly, to impose it would be a completely pointless gesture, a non-event, because as a result of Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, any term of imprisonment of three months or less would have to be suspended, and I am sure that no one seriously suggests, bearing in mind how few will be affected by the Bill in any case, that people are likely to come before the courts for a second offence.

Thirdly, the penalty for imprisonment is entirely inappropriate here, because we must recognise that the Bill establishes yet another absolute offence. This is rather unfortunate, after the recent occurrence in the case of Sweet v. Parsley. If we are to continue to create absolute offences, we must make it doubly sure that the penalties for them will not work any injustice.

I do not like the practice of inserting in Bills a power to impose imprisonment of three months, and no more. Very few people realise that the powers-that-be are not being generous when the limit the term to three months, and do not say four months, five months, or six months. All they do by so limiting the term is to ensure that the citizen who is exposed to penalty, including the penalty of imprisonment, does not have the right to have his case tried by jury.

Mr. David Watkins

I very much appreciate the apology made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) on behalf of his hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland), who advised me, with his usual courtesy, that it would not be possible for him to be present today.

I am very happy to accept both Amendments. We had a good deal of discussion in Committee on this subject, and I gave an undertaking to consider it again between then and now. I have ascertained that current penal policy tends to discouragee short terms of imprisonment, and this principle is embodied in the Criminal Justice Act, 1967. The original wording of this Bill was lifted, as it were, from earlier legislation, and I certainly accept that, the circumstances having changed, the Amendments should be made.

The Home Office has advised me that it would not include imprisonment on summary convictions in any current legislation unless there were compelling circumstances which made it necessary. I do not think that there are compelling circumstances in this case. The Home Office has advised me that a fine is adequate in the circumstances, and I believe that the fine proposed in the penalty Clause is quite adequate.

Amendment agreed to.

Further amendment made: No. 11, in page 3, line 29, leave out "or to both such imprisonment and such fine".—[Mr. Waddington.]

2.57 p.m.

Mr. David Watkins

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This is virtually an all-party measure. It is interesting to note that although during the Report stage there have been quite strong expressions of opposing opinion at times, there have been no Divisions. That happy atmosphere existed in the Committee, and I hope that it will persist now.

This happy degree of agreement has been possible only because of the cooperation of Members on both sides, who have shown great interest in the Measure and have done a great deal to help. I express my thanks to all hon. Members for the courtesy with which they have treated me throughout the proceedings, and for the help which has been forthcoming. In this connection I must refer particularly to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and the officers of his Department, who have been of great assistance to me throughout.

Nor must I let the occasion pass without referring to the very valuable help I have received from outside the House. I refer particularly to the Industrial Law Society, some of whose members—notably, Mr. Geoffrey de N. Clark, its Secretary, and Mr. John Williams, one of its prominent members—have been pillars of strength to me. I place on record my thanks for their help.

The Bill deals with a comparatively small area of employers' liability and employers' liability insurance, but it has very wide ramifications. First and foremost, it seeks to remedy a situation whereby people can be injured in the course of their employment, can be awarded compensation by the courts against their employer, and yet not receive that compensation because the employer does not have the necessary resources. This state of things tends to occur mainly amongst smaller firms. Firms can be bankrupted, and regularly are bankrupted in those circumstances because they lack the resources to meet claims, and have not insured against them.

Quite apart from the injustice to someone who may be seriously injured at work and who does not receive his rights, it seems equally unjust that a small employer, who may have spent a lifetime building up a business, can be bankrup ted because he is not aware of his liability. The Bill represents an important step towards remedying this situation. The Trades Union Congress has been asking for legislation embodying this principle for a number of years, and hon. Members have pressed the Government in the past, by tabling Questions and in other ways, to introduce such legislation, but it has not been done.

I was initially a little surprised to find that I was the first hon. Member to introduce a Bill embodying this central principle. It can be claimed that remarkable progress has been made. I cannot resist the temptation to point out that I was No. 26 out of 27 in the Ballot for Private Members' Bills, and that in the first instance the Government indicated that they were not prepared to assist with the Bill. Without in any way wishing to pat myself on the back, I think that I can say that we have made remarkable progress in having brought the Bill to this stage in the same Session as it was introduced.

I am hoping that the Bill might lead to the setting up of an employers' liability insurers bureau by the insurance market on the lines of the Motor Insurers Bureau which deals with disputed cases. I accept that there are technical difficulties in doing this, but I hope that the passage of the Bill, assuming it receives the Royal Assent, will lead to this step being taken, A particular case which has been very much in the minds of all of us who have been associated with the Bill during these proceedings was the tragic fire at Glasgow in the autumn of last year.

Mr. R. W. Brown

I have been trying to impress upon my hon. Friend, and the sponsors of the Bill, that that employer was covered and that it was reneging by the insurance company on its bounden duty that led to this. He referred earlier to the word of the insurance companies being their bond. Lord Polwarth ought to be ashamed of himself, in that his word is not his bond. It is in these difficult circumstances that I feel that if we are not careful, while the Bill covers a major aspect, we shall still not catch the "Lord Polwarths" of this world whose word is not their bond.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make a speech on Third Reading in an intervention.

Mr. Watkins

I know the point my hon. Friend is making, and it is precisely to cover that point that this Bill is an important step forward. The setting up of an employers' liability insurers bureau would be a means of preventing such a tragic occurrence. We have produced a good and important piece of legislation, and I ask the House to give it the Third Reading.

3.4 p.m.

Mr. David Mitchell

I congratulate the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) on being fortunate enough to introduce the Bill at all, but also on the tenacity with which he has pushed it forward and brought it to Third Reading. His tenacity was rewarded in Committee when there was a switch of Government Departments and there was an acceptance, if not of responsibility, then of a duty to advise the hon. Gentleman and the Committee about the Bill. I draw attention to the generous phrases which the hon. Gentleman used about the way in which the Bill was treated by both sides in Committee.

There is a real need for legislation to deal with the situation which arises when an employer has failed to insure and an employee is injured and sues the employer who does not have sufficient funds to pay compensation. The loss to an injured man who is unable to claim is as great as that of the employer, whatever the size of his concern. Therefore, this is a worth-while piece of private Member's legislation.

I should like to thank the Minister for the advice which he tendered to the Committee. For nine weeks the Bill languished in the care of another Department without its finding time or the need to give advice about changes required in the terminology of the Bill. Only 48 hours after it was dropped in his lap the Minister was able to start advising the Committee. After an adjournment of only a week we were given the benefit of substantial advice in Committee. It is right that I should express appreciation to the Minister and, through him, to those who advised him.

However, we are still slightly uneasy about who will be covered by the Bill—whether the neighbour's gardener whom one borrows to dig a trench will be covered or whether the farmer who obtains casual holiday labour needs to be covered. I hope that by the time that regulations are drafted these matters will be absolutely clear beyond any doubt.

I have much pleasure in supporting the Third Reading of the Bill.

3.8 p.m.

Mr. R. W. Brown

I have taken note of your comment, Mr. Speaker, and I can only apologise to you for the urgency with which I regard the Bill.

I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins). For him it has been a great trial of strength in trying to encourage us to follow his thinking. The House and the country are indebted to him and to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. I have had experience of trying to persuade the Parliamentary Secretary to schedule nasal cancer. I know of his humanity and understanding of the problems in industry. This is another example of his attempts to ensure that people in industry are properly protected.

I, too, have some reservations about whether the Bill will cover all that I would have wished it to cover. My bête noire is the insurance company. I refer particularly to my trade union, the National Union of Furniture Trade Operatives, and the anxiety which relatives, including 15 children, are suffering because the third largest insurance company in the country has chosen to renege upon its bounden duty and its word being its bond. The head of that company is a member of another place, and one would have thought that his standards would have been high enough to be in accord with the expression of this House in the Bill.

The relatives of those killed were entitled to about £200,000, and yet the insurance company is offering them only about £20,000 or £25,000. One can visualise the magnitude of the distressing situation they are in, and I like to feel that somehow the Bill will at least go to the extent of ensuring that employers are insured, and if it does no more than at least inform this noble Lord of his first duty and force him to understand that he should instruct his insurance company to stand by its word as its bond, some purpose will have been served.

From now on, we shall be happy in our minds that employers will be properly insured. Second—and this is something I have pressed for for some time—these insurance covers will be exhibited so that the workers are satisfied that they are properly covered. Third, we shall ensure that our workers feel that should they encounter accident or something greater, their relatives will be properly provided for in accordance with the high principles we have established in this country. I congratulate my hon. Friend and I wish the Bill well and hope that it will reach the Statute Book speedily.

3.12 p.m.

Mr. Pentland

I have great pleasure in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) on the successful conclusion of the Bill. Consett is next to my constituency of Chester-le-Street and, as you know, Mr. Speaker, as a proud product of the North-East yourself, Chester-le-Street is the Mecca of civilisation and now Consett is gradually trying to catch up.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not bring new contentious matters into the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Pentland

I depart with great haste from that topic, Sir.

I am grateful for all the things which have been said about me and my officials. I am particularly glad that such fine tributes have been paid to the officials of my Department, because I can assure the House that those tributes were certainly well deserved.

As a result of the changes made in the Bill, we have achieved the aim which I hope we all shared when the Bill went into Committee. I believe that we have turned, as we all intended, a good idea into a practical Measure. I must not pretend, on behalf of the Government, that the Bill could be brought into force in the immediate future, assuming that it receives the Royal Assent this Session, because, as I have pointed out at every stage, a great deal of further consultation must take place before the detailed requirements of regulations can be settled. That answers the point made by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell).

However, we have now a practical framework which will enable regulations to be made to deal with matters which may emerge from the consultations. Those consultations will proceed and they can be more meaningful now that there is this practical frame of reference.

I must congratulate my hon. Friend once again on the wide support which this, his maiden, Bill has commanded. His maiden is perhaps rather more sophisticated than when he sponsored her, but some forewarning of the ways of the world is no bad thing for a maiden in her position. I wish my hon. Friend every success with the further stages of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Back to