Health and Safety at Work (Offences) Bill

HC Deb 31 January 2003 vol 398 cc1149-83

Order for Second Reading read.

11.59 am

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 bringing 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.

12.33 pm

Mr. Mark Hoban (Fareham)

The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) made some important points about health and safety. It is clearly a matter of concern to employers and parliamentarians that proper safeguards are in place to ensure the health and safety of employees.

One of the issues that employers have raised with me in the past 18 months has been the level and volume of health and safety regulations, and there is some concern about their complexity. The Bill would increase the penalties incurred by an employer who breached the regulations. In preparing for the Bill, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby consulted the construction industry and the Chemical Industries Association—complex and dangerous industries unless the correct safety procedures are in place. I know how important health and safety is to members of my family who are involved in the construction industry, and how important it is to the way in which sites are run and projects managed and the safeguards that they put in place.

Mr. Bercow

I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that we should legislate not in anger but on the evidence. Can he tell us something about the increasing incidence of offences that formed the evidential base on which the review of the current penalty maximums was conducted by the Home Office, the then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Health and Safety Executive between February and September 1999?

Mr. Hoban

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, but I suspect that he may have an opportunity to elaborate on that evidence himself later on, for the benefit of the House. That evidential base was indeed an omission from the speech of the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby. He simply said that the Bill was a good thing rather than explaining it fully. Given the way in which the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) was killed off earlier, he had plenty of time to give a full explanation.

Mr. Bercow

I have the highest regard for the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, and I respect his intentions in promoting the Bill, but my concern is not that he did not want to develop the evidential premise for the provisions but that one or two of his colleagues, for their own reasons, were not keen that he should do so.

Mr. Hoban

Perhaps the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby can tackle that valuable point when he winds up.

Mr. Forth

Perhaps my hon. Friend would say a few words about whether he shares my disappointment that the promoter of the Bill did not provide more evidence of international comparisons, in which I have always thought that we have an exemplary health and safety record. Surely we should have international, as well as domestic, sector-by-sector evidence.

Mr. Hoban

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. British industry is indeed perceived as having a good health and safety record. Is it fair to increase the penalties here, when our businesses are competing internationally? My understanding is that, in order to change the penalties, it is necessary to amend the European Communities Act 1972, which perhaps makes it all the more important to understand the international comparisons behind the Bill.

Mr. Leigh

It is unfortunate that the promoter was clearly told to sit down. This was his big day, and he could at least have been allowed to develop his case. I am confused about why these changes are being made by way of a private Member's Bill. After all, the Government amend fines all the time, often as an adjunct to a Government Bill. What does my hon. Friend think is the provenance of this Bill? Is it a Government handout? Surely the point of a private Member's Bill is to progress some great private issue of interest to the promoter.

Mr. Hoban

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. On the cover of the Bill, we are told that the explanatory notes were provided by the Department for Work and Pensions, so perhaps, to use an unparliamentary expression, it is indeed a handout. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby perhaps gave the game away towards the end of his speech when he referred to the review that the Deputy Prime Minister initiated in the early years of the last Parliament, which produced the recommendations that the Bill puts into effect.

I wonder where the Government's priorities on legislation lie. I would have thought that the Deputy Prime Minister, a man of some weight and stature in the Labour party—both metaphorically and literally—would have been able to find time in the Government's legislative programme, which certainly was rather light in content last year, to introduce a Bill such as this. Indeed, the provisions could have been introduced by way of statutory instrument. The hon. Gentleman might explain why that was not so, but he is clearly not interested in responding.

Mr. Gray

The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) has a great personal interest in the railways and a distinguished history of speaking on behalf of the industry before he entered the House. Is not it disappointing, therefore, that the Government have given him this thin little Bill rather than allowing him to take up one of his interests, such as the railways?

Mr. Hoban

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I have heard the hon. Gentleman wax lyrical on many subjects. I have heard him speaking in European Standing Committee A on the fishing industry. His interests in the railway industry are well known. Indeed, he cited it as a source of inspiration for the Bill. How significant that inspiration is compared with that which he found in the Department for Work and Pensions, I do not know. Perhaps he could clarify that.

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. Bercow

The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) has, rightly, emphasised that it is the cowboys who are his target, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) agrees that that fact does not obviate the need for a proper debate about the nature and extent of the condign punishment that offenders should suffer. Given that the prison population—a matter to which I animadverted earlier—is projected to rise from approximately 72,000 now to between 99,000 and 109,000 by 2009, do we not need to know what the likely impact of this well-intentioned Bill would be on prison overcrowding?

Mr. Hoban

Yet again, my hon. Friend makes a telling point. It is interesting that paragraph 17 of the explanatory notes to the Bill states: There are no significant public expenditure implications. Making imprisonment available for more health and safety offences is expected to lead to a minimal increase in the prison population. One has no reason to doubt that assertion, but at a time when the prisons are under pressure in terms of population, and when that pressure appears—at least to—those of us who do not have a legal background—to have triggered demands by the Lord Chief Justice to stop imprisonment for most type of burglary, which should relieve the pressure, it seems odd that the Bill might lead to additional overcrowding pressures in prisons. If under this provision persons who commit a health and safety offence are to become liable to imprisonment, one wonders whether the Government believe that the provision is unlikely to be used and is therefore of minimal benefit; and, if that is the case, one wonders why the provision appears in the Bill.

Mr. Bercow

I am sorry to trouble my hon. Friend unduly, but does he agree that the Bill appears to be flawed on one or the other or both of two counts? Either the Bill is guilty of a lack of transparency or honesty in the intended sentencing policy, because it provides for imprisonment without the intention that effect will be given to that provision; or it is based on a calculation of the likely deterrent value of the new sentences, in which case we need to know on what basis—what evidential yardstick or international comparison—the promoter's confidence about the deterrent effect is founded.

Mr. Hoban

On the first point, the question is: if there is to be a sanction, will it be used? On the second point, if there is no expectation that the Health and Safety Executive will use the sanction, will it ever act as a deterrent? If it is not intended to use the sanction, there will be no deterrent. If it is intended to use it more widely, the financial implications of the Bill for public expenditure are rather greater than the explanatory notes suggest. [Interruption.] The Minister for Work says that we must be kidding. When he replies to the debate, I am sure that he will answer the valid points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) about the use and effectiveness of the sanction.

I have devoted most of my speech to discussion of health and safety offences and the punishments that will be brought into effect if the Bill becomes law. Opposition Members have expressed concern about the nature and purpose of the sanctions outlined in clause 1. I am sure that we shall return to that point in Committee, because it is important to ensure that the true purpose and intent of the clause are well known to employers and to the Health and Safety Commission, which will be responsible for putting the Bill into effect if it becomes law.

Mr. Leigh

My hon. Friend speaks for the Conservative party this morning, which traditionally speaks for business. Will he outline what the Bill will cost business, any burdens that it might place on business and whether those on the Conservative Front Bench therefore have anything to say on these subjects?

Mr. Hoban

My hon. Friend is tempting me down a route that even the Government probably have not explored fully—the Bill's impact on business.

Mr. Forth

I might be able to give my hon. Friend some help. He knows, because he studied them closely, that in the explanatory notes, which are a very fertile field of information on the Bill—quite a lot of it rather controversial—item 19 says, incredibly: The Bill will not impose new requirements on business. Even if the Government have failed to make any proper impact assessment, and say that there is no need for one, do not our joint and collective knowledge of business, and our instincts, tell us that it is bound to add a burden if it is going to have any effect at all?

Mr. Hoban

My right hon. Friend, with his usual incisive powers in looking at legislation, makes a very valid point. I know, from my own experience of looking at regulatory impact assessments, that often they are incomplete or ill thought-through. If the Government are saying that no such assessment is needed in this case, I do wonder whether they have looked at the matter fully. My right hon. Friend is right: if the Bill is passed, employers will review their procedures. It will provide fertile employment for human resources consultants and safety consultants, who will point out to businesses that these punishments have been introduced, and that the liabilities that they will face are much steeper than they were previously.

Mr. Bercow

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hoban

Will my hon. Friend bear with me? I have given way to him several times already and I will of course give way to him imminently, but I want to finish this point.

The Bill will provide a sales pitch for health and safety consultants throughout the country. They will tell employers, "We must look again at your health and safety procedures, because you do not want to go to jail." Even those employers who are comfortable with their existing health and safety procedures will feel under considerable pressure to accept the blandishments of health and safety consultants who are using the Bill—

Lawrie Quinn

indicated dissent.

Mr. Hoban

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I have learned from talking to employers in my constituency that often nothing will open their cheque book more easily than the threat of sanctions or penalties. Good employers, not only bad ones, will feel the impact. I worry that the legislation will be used unscrupulously by some consultants, which no Member intends, to generate more business and cause businesses to incur additional costs. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for raising that valid point because it is important to place on the record that we must be wary about the use to which the Bill will be put by consultants.

Mr. Bercow

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. That last point is especially applicable to small firms, which typically do not have in-house legal, finance or personnel departments and will therefore be required to seek and pay for outside consultancy advice. Given that 99.6 per cent. of companies in the UK employ fewer than 100 people and that those companies generate approximately two fifths of our national output and employ more than 50 per cent. of the private sector work force, are these not relevant matters that must be taken into account in our deliberations?

Mr. Hoban

My hon. Friend, as ever, makes a telling point, particularly about the impact of regulation on small businesses. It came as a surprise to me, having worked in the large corporate sector before coming to the House, that when I looked at an analysis of businesses in my constituency I found that very few of them—only 30 or 40 organisations—employed more than 50 people. The rest were small businesses, many with fewer than 10 employees. My concern is, as ever, about the impact of legislation on businesses. What pressures arising from the Bill will they need to reflect in their own procedures and what additional costs will they bear?

Clause 2 deals with employers' liability insurance, which is of great concern to employers up and down the country. The British Insurance Brokers Association claims that 500 small and medium firms went out of business in 2002 because of a sharp increase in employer liability premiums and that a further 10,000 are at risk. In trying to understand the reason for increased premiums, many commentators have referred to the growing compensation culture, the sense that the litigation that we see as characterising the American legal system is creeping across to the UK and that employees, customers or passers by will sue if they suffer an injury that can be related back to a business or a Government body. Indeed, the compensation culture has had a dreadful impact on the health service.

There has also been a rise in successful claims by staff injured at work. Each year, 30,000 people are seriously injured in the workplace. Another consideration is the impact of asbestos-related claims. Three or four months ago, I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham making a very measured and thoughtful contribution on the impact of statutory instruments on asbestosis. Indeed, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will be able to relate that experience to the Bill that we are considering today.

Insurance companies also refer back to the impact of 11 September, which resulted in many of them suffering large claims. It brought a greater appreciation of the risk that companies suffer from terrorist and other activities, which has led to an increase in insurance premiums.

Another factor is the stock market slump. Many insurance companies invest the proceeds of their policies in bonds and equities as a way of reducing the cost to businesses as they set aside a reserve for claims. That money is invested and it is assumed—or hoped—that the investment value of the reserves will increase. The increase is used to offset the cost of insurance to employers as well as to householders, car owners and so on. The downturn in the stock market in the past fortnight, when there were 10 consecutive days of falls in the FTSE 100, was a historic occasion and indeed a sad one for those with pensions or investments in the stock market. It will have made the financial pressures facing the stock market even harder. This week, there was a severe markdown in the share price of one insurance company because there were unwarranted concerns about its solvency. Insurance companies are working in a difficult market, and consequently premiums for employers liability insurance have increased. Aon, the world's second largest insurance broker and a major employer in this country, said in a survey published in December that many firms' premiums had doubled in the past 12 months. It also suggested that premiums are set to rise by a further 15 per cent. in the current financial year.

Mr. Bellingham

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way in his superb debut on the Front Bench. He talked about premiums doubling, but has he heard about a family-run steel fabrication business in the Deputy Prime Minister's constituency that has just made five people redundant and is likely to cease trading because its combined public liability and employers liability bill has increased from £3,600 to £28,000?

Mr. Hoban

The scale of the increase that my hon. Friend has just outlined will, I am sure, trigger a request for clarification from the Hansard reporters, as it seems beyond belief that a company can face such an extensive increase in its premiums. That highlights the problems that businesses face as premiums go up. Some employers will decide to reduce the scale of their operations, as the steel fabricator in the Deputy Prime Minister's constituency has done, by reducing the number of employees. However, some employers will make an ill-judged if well-intentioned decision not to cause hardship among their employees and will avoid those huge increases in premiums by not paying them. That is a regrettable decision, and I do not believe that businesses should make it. If they are interested in the long-term welfare of their employees, they need to ensure that liability insurance is in place, and should not base their decision on short-term financial gain.

Employers face difficult decisions. Faced with that trade-off, should they make staff redundant or cancel their employers liability insurance? People who cancel their insurance will be caught by the Bill's provisions.

Mr. Gray

The conundrum that my hon. Friend has described particularly affects the stone-quarrying industry in many parts of England, including my constituency. Employers will not lay people off, but they cannot pay the higher premiums. Many of them are seeking to set up a co-op and become joint owners of a business to try to see the problem off, but that means that they are not paying insurance and are taking on the risk themselves, rather than giving it to the company. Does my hon. Friend not agree that that too is regrettable?

Mr. Hoban

My hon. Friend has raised an important and worrying issue for businesses and their employees. Business pressures are forcing employers to look at measures such as setting up co-operatives or cancelling their liability insurance, which will lead to a dangerous trend in the insurance market. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that issue to the attention of the House.

Hon. Members have spoken about problems that they have encountered in their constituency or that they are aware of through their business contacts. The Engineering Employers Federation released details last December of its experience. Many of its members have faced premium increases of up to 300 per cent. in the past year. In August 2002, the BBC's online service published an article entitled "Insurance woes hit small firms". It highlights the risk to which I referred earlier and claims that because of rises in premiums, many firms continue to trade without cover, in contravention of UK law.

Mr. Bellingham

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), told the House on 5 December that the Government had set up a comprehensive review of the matter and would report to the House. As the Minister for Work is present today, would it not be in everyone's interest if he made a speech—quite a long speech, we hope—telling us how that review is going?

Mr. Hoban

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. With his usually prescience, he highlights the point that I intended to raise next. I am concerned that the provision will have an impact on employers liability insurance. I believe that we should consider the matter carefully and wait until the Department for Work and Pensions has reviewed employers liability insurance and see the conclusions that it has reached. The House should not act precipitately.

The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown)

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his Front-Bench responsibilities. It is a delight to see him at the Dispatch Box. I will make a deal with him. If Conservative Members do not talk out the Second Reading of the Bill today, I will serve on the Standing Committee that considers the Bill and we can have a comprehensive discussion of these important matters relating to employers liability insurance. In Committee there will be a chance to question me, not just on issues of principle, but on issues of detail. That is a very fair deal.

Mr. Forth

The Minister did not make such an offer on the previous Bill.

Mr. Nicholas Brown

If the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) will allow me to take an intervention—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord)

Order. To keep ourselves in order, the Minister ought to let the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) respond to his intervention, before he responds to the next one.

Mr. Hoban

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your protection. As hon. Members have remarked, it is my first occasion at the Dispatch Box. so I am grateful for your direction to ensure that we remain in order.

We would all welcome a detailed explanation and discussion of the Bill in Committee, but it is important that we debate the issue in full on the Floor of the House before we proceed to Committee stage. Only a limited number of hon. Members can serve on the Committee, and the Bill is clearly of interest to a large number of hon. Members, especially Conservative Members. We need to explore the issues in full. I will allow the Minister to intervene again.

Mr. Brown

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He makes a perfectly fair point. I would be happy to return to these matters, either by giving a full report to the House on our review of employers liability insurance later in the spring or early summer, or at the Report stage of the Bill.

The shadow Leader of the House seemed to suggest in his sedentary intervention that talking the Bill out was a quid pro quo for the previous business not being quorate. May I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House that it is always open to the parliamentary Conservative party to make sure that the House is quorate for business that the Opposition consider important.

Mr. Hoban

Those of us who have been in the House this morning witnessed the way in which Labour Members used parliamentary procedure to stifle discussion of a Bill that some have characterised as an attack on fat cats. Perhaps it is all the more ironic that it was Labour Members who prevented discussion of that Bill. However, I am conscious that I would be deviating from order if I continued down that track for much longer.

Mr. Gray

My hon. Friend has been most generous in taking interventions. Does he not find it extraordinary to hear a Minister of the Crown begging from the Dispatch Box for the Bill to be allowed to go through today and not be talked out, as he calls it? Of course we have no intention of doing that, as we have important things to say. Twice the right hon. Gentleman stood at the Dispatch Box, begging. If it is all that important to the Government, why do they not just make it a Government Bill?

Mr. Hoban

My hon. Friend makes a valid point.

Mr. Forth

A killer point.

Mr. Hoban

My right hon. Friend is right. The Bill is about the protection of employees, but I point out that Labour Back Benchers—I would hate to think that the earlier use of a procedural device was inspired by the Government or the Labour party's usual channels—killed a Bill about the protection of shareholders, who are often workers who hold shares in their firms or pensioners. We have today had opportunities to talk about protection for different classes of people, but it is disappointing that one of them has been quashed.

Mr. Brown

That is not true. Employers operating legitimately are protected by the penalty regime. The penalties fall only on those who have been taken to the courts for cheating.

Mr. Hoban

Without wishing to engage in a ding-dong about this particular aspect of the Bill, I point out that when we discussed the Bill previously, it was seen as a deterrent. It was seen not as protecting employers, but as beating them around the head if they failed to comply.

Mr. Bercow

My hon. Friend is developing his arguments powerfully, but does he agree that this debate has a lop-sided character? If the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby had been at liberty properly and in detail to defend some of the excellent arguments that I think he had intended to develop and had not been subject to the selfish parliamentary thuggery of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who is now noticeably absent from his place, many of our concerns might have been allayed at a much earlier stage in the proceedings. The hon. Member for Hendon is guilty as charged.

Mr. Hoban

My hon. Friend's intervention requires little or no answer from me.

Before we were diverted briefly into discussing protection of different classes of people who work for the same firm, whether they are employers, shareholders or employees, we were discussing employers liability insurance. Clause 2 increases the penalty for employers who do not have employers liability insurance. I explained why there are pressures in the insurance market that have resulted in employers ceasing to hold such insurance. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) pointed out that the Department for Work and Pensions is reviewing the matter. The Minister for Work said that at a later stage he would expand on the results of the Government's review, but I was disappointed when he said that the results would be available in late spring or early summer. Given the increase in employers liability insurance that people in the insurance sector are predicting, it is clear that, as a result of higher premiums, a great many more businesses will go out of business, more employees will be laid off and more employers might be tempted to take the foolish route of ceasing to have such insurance.

It would be better for the Government to release the results of the review sooner so that we can see whether the increased penalties that the Bill sets out for those who do not hold employers liability insurance are appropriate, given the current market conditions. It is not only the Government who are inquiring into employers liability insurance; I understand that the Office of Fair Trading is engaged in a similar review. It is important to wait for the results of both those reviews. Given the importance of employers liability insurance to employees and employers, I wonder whether a private Member's Bill is the appropriate vehicle for tackling the subject.

I want briefly to refer to a couple of other clauses. I am conscious that Conservative Members want to participate in the debate; I do not know whether that applies to Labour Members. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby did not mention proposed new section 5(4) of the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969, which clause 2 would introduce. It reconsiders the time for bringing a prosecution for breaches of health and safety rules. Currently, a prosecution can be brought within six months of the offence occurring. The Bill would change that rule and provide that such an offence could be tried within the period of five years beginning with the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed, and … within the period of six months beginning with the date on which evidence sufficient in the opinion of the prosecutor to justify the proceedings comes to his knowledge. That is a significant change.

The explanatory notes claimed that the Government would incur no additional financial cost. However, I wonder about the impact of the change. I am worried that employers and the Health and Safety Executive might be exposed to a series of vexatious claims by employees, who would know that they had a longer period in which to claim and might think up opportunities to do that, not through interest in their well-being but to create a problem for the employers. One can imagine, for example, an employee who had been dismissed thinking back to an incident that took place three, four or five years ago and bringing it to the attention of the HSE. The clause could be used to take up a case with the HSE, which would need investigation by the inspectorate and require employers to go through their records and spend time appointing a solicitor, taking legal advice and perhaps employing one of the health and safety consultants to whom I referred earlier.

The Bill provides a window of opportunity for a backlog of claims.

Mr. Bercow

I do not want to be unduly troublesome or question my hon. Friend's motives. We all understand the danger of vexatious claims, against which the House should guard. However, will my hon. Friend take great care not to give the unworthy and untrue impression that Conservative Members tolerate wrongdoing? We recognise that, even if something happened a long time ago, it should be investigated. I refer my hon. Friend to the statute of limitations, which typically covers a period of not five but six years.

Mr. Hoban

As ever, my hon. Friend makes a valuable point. It is right to provide protection in law and to ensure that any wrongdoing can be rectified and that those responsible can be punished.

I used the example of someone who had been dismissed from a company using the Bill to make a vexatious claim. One could present the contrary view. Unscrupulous employers, to which the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby referred, might apply pressure to employees. They could say, "We do not want you to raise this matter with the HSE." Free from the contract of employment, the former employees could use the measure to right the wrongs that they believed were committed at a time when they did not feel able to bring the matter to the HSE's attention.

As in all cases of extending a period for making a claim or reporting an offence, the provision is a double-edged sword. It should be explored in detail in Committee because we must ascertain the size of the potential backlog. We need to understand how the Health and Safety Executive would consider such claims. What standard of evidence would it require from the person who brings the allegation to it before initiating an investigation into an offence that may have taken place four or five years ago? It would be worth seeking advice from employers and the Health and Safety Executive on the level of burden that might be inflicted by the Bill's provisions.

The five-year limit is within the limit set out in the statute of limitations, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said. The Committee should question whether five years is too short and six years is more appropriate, but that is a debate for another day.

Mr. Nicholas Brown

Serve on the Committee.

Mr. Hoban

I am sure that there is gainful employment to be found for many colleagues in considering this important Bill.

Mr. Bercow

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hoban

I will happily give way to my hon. Friend, but I hope that he is not exhausting his contribution to the debate by intervening so much.

Mr. Bercow

I am alarmed by my hon. Friend's evident lack of confidence in me. I assure him that my fund is very far from being inexhaustible, but it has not yet been exhausted. To put it another way, there is still lead in the pencil.

In addition to guarding against vexation, hon. Members on both sides of the House should be suspicious of arbitrariness. Has my hon. Friend reflected on the arbitrariness of the contents of clause 4, which says: This Act shall have effect in relation to an offence committed or alleged to have been committed after the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed"? Why two months? Why not one month, three months or four months? That is peculiar.

Mr. Hoban

My hon. Friend demonstrates yet again that his contributions to such debates are inexhaustible. [Interruption.] The Minister encourages my hon. Friend to participate in the Standing Committee debates, and I am sure that he is contemplating that prospect as we speak.

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I am sure that the parliamentary draftsmen recruited by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby will have a good justification for choosing two months. [Interruption.] There seems to be an element of horse-trading between right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House on the period set out in clause 4. I do not think that that is a matter for Second Reading. It is perhaps better suited to a debate in Committee.

Subsection (5) extends the Bill's provisions to Scotland and subsection (4) extends them to England and Wales. What about employees in Northern Ireland? Can the Bill be amended to extend that cover to fellow members of the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland? There is no reason why they should be denied the opportunity to benefit from the same protection that the Bill affords to people in Scotland, England or Wales.

I hope that I have not trespassed too much on the good will of the House by speaking for nearly an hour on my first outing at the Dispatch Box, and apologise if I have done so. The Bill is important. Many people will follow its progress closely if it proceeds to Committee. It is an important Bill for employers and employees, and it addresses some important issues. However, I wonder whether it is appropriate for this Bill to be introduced in this state, and at a time when the Government and the Office of Fair Trading are looking at the availability of employers liability insurance in detail.

1.25 pm

Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham)

I share the slightly sad and frustrated approach to this legislation. This is clearly an enormously important subject to companies and to the work force, but, although I share many of the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) in his introductory remarks, the Bill is unsatisfactory for two reasons. The first is that a perfectly good and interesting Bill was bulldozed out of the way to make way for it. Secondly, as it stands it is neither one thing nor the other. It is too ambitious and far-reaching for a private Member's Bill, but it does not have the rounded sophistication of a full Government Bill.

I am mystified as to why the Government have not introduced their own health and safety legislation, as I believe they undertook to do. For that reason, and although Conservative Members are talking at some length about the Bill, I hope that they will allow it to go to Committee, so that we can tease out the Government's intentions a little more. For example, I should be very happy to work with the Minister and Government Back Benchers to produce a clause on corporate killing. The Government have a clear manifesto commitment that they have yet to honour in that regard, and perhaps this is an opportunity to debate that properly.

There are three elements to the Bill. The first I agree with, and it would be very useful: simply to increase the fines imposed by magistrates courts. They are far too low—ridiculously and insultingly low—and very out of date, and if the Bill were limited simply to dealing with existing offences and increasing fines appropriately, it would be a very useful addition to existing legislation, and I would fully support it. The second element is extending the scope of imprisonment. That raises big issues of legal principle and implementation with which there are serious problems. The third element, which deals with employers' liability, is irrelevant and fundamentally misses the point of why we have a problem with employers' liability.

A useful starting point is the earlier intervention of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). He asked whether the problem with health and safety is really one of penalties, and the answer is no. Figures produced by the Health and Safety Executive itself suggest that only one in 10 of serious injuries are ever investigated, and that only one in 10 of those are ever brought to the courts. So we are dealing with the tiny fraction of very serious injuries at work that reach the judicial process, and focusing on the penalties for those misses the essential point: how do we strengthen the health and safety framework—one hopes in a non-bureaucratic way—to ensure proper prevention and investigation, and effective prosecution? Those are the links in the chain that we are not addressing.

I shall deal with the three elements of the Bill in turn. As I have pointed out, an increase in magistrates courts' fines would be appropriate and I would support it, but what the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby did not mention is that when health and safety failures reach Crown courts, there are unlimited fines. So the question arises of whether it might be better to increase the scope for taking cases to Crown courts, rather than escalating fines in magistrates courts. We should consider jurisdiction as well as the level of fines.

Mr. Bercow

The hon. Gentleman is being as constructive today as he always is, but does he not agree that, if we were to follow the route that he suggests, it would be necessary to consider the regulatory impact assessment? What would be the public expenditure implications of pursuing the route of the Crown court, rather than that of the magistrates court?

Dr. Cable

The entire Bill gives rise to the question of the regulatory impact assessment, and there are major regulatory implications and costs for business. It is not so much a public expenditure issue, but I agree that there are regulatory implications that clearly need to be properly evaluated and considered.

I mentioned Crown courts in relation to the fines issue. Alternatively, an individual could pursue their claim with a civil claim. We need to consider both routes. However, I hope that the proposal in the Bill to increase the fines in magistrates courts survives in some form, as it is a worthwhile initiative.

On imprisonment, I start from the same position as the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby. Health and safety is not dealt with in the same way as, for example, consumer protection or environmental offences, where it is much easier to obtain a prison sentence. A few years ago, the case of the Scottish butchers who produced beef in unhygienic conditions that was heavily contaminated with salmonella resulted in a prison sentence. It would be extremely difficult to get a prison sentence for health and safety breaches, even in extremely serious cases. It may be possible in principle, but only in cases where a company has actually breached an order rather than merely committed an offence. That needs to be tackled, but it should be done in the context of the extremely difficult issue of corporate killing, about which the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby is extremely knowledgeable due to his experience in the railway industry.

I do not know why the Government have not pursued that important issue, as they promised to do, although there are obvious difficulties. How does one obtain the right standard of proof? How does one identify the responsible individual in an organisation? Is it the personnel director, the supervisor or the chairman of the board? None the less, it is unsatisfactory that we are not dealing with those problems as part of the reform of health and safety legislation.

Mr. Bellingham

The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on that aspect. He will be aware of my interest in the Potters Bar train disaster which occurred approaching a year ago—the train was heading into my constituency. We are still waiting for the HSE report on that tragedy. There has been much speculation that charges of corporate manslaughter could be levied against the contractors, Jarvis. There is much uncertainty, so does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is time that the HSE published its final report? Furthermore, the Government really need to look into the situation as regards corporate manslaughter.

Dr. Cable

Indeed. The hon. Gentleman is right. I was making exactly that point. However, when pursuing such cases, the problem for the authorities is determining the individual—in Jarvis, in this instance—who would face prosecution. There is a difference between prosecuting an organisation and an individual. It is extremely difficult to identify the relevant person in an organisation; the Government need to address that issue, as it is not tackled in the Bill.

The Bill is not helpful on the problems relating to employer liability on which I initiated an Adjournment debate about six weeks ago. As has already been pointed out, many companies face massive increases in employer liability insurance charges. Some companies have been cut off altogether—

Mr. Nicholas Brown

indicated dissent.

Dr. Cable

The Minister shakes his head, but surveys undertaken by chambers of commerce show that about one in eight or one in 10 companies face difficulties in getting any liability cover at all.

Mr. Brown

That is an important point and I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would drop me a note listing companies that to his certain knowledge are wholly uninsurable. My understanding is that the problem relates to rates for insurance rather than its availability.

Dr. Cable

My impression is that both are involved, although I shall be happy to correspond with the Minister and send him the record of my debate where I made relevant references.

Mr. Hoban

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there are problems both with the rates charged for cover and because insurance companies are withdrawing capacity for employers' liability insurance from the market?

Dr. Cable

That is my point. Employers liability cover is not being withdrawn maliciously; it has been withdrawn because the market cannot fulfil it in certain sectors, such as quarries, for example, where the safety factor is especially difficult to cover. Although the Minister disputes whether this is a serious issue—it is —I can envisage difficulties with the Bill because companies would be open to fines and workers could be dismissed even though they cannot obtain satisfactory insurance. That is not satisfactory.

Mr. Brown

I do not dispute the fact that that is a serious issue, but I am trying to get the hon. Gentleman to say whether the problem relates to the absolute unavailability of insurance or to the increased premiums. In other words, the problem is that insurance is available, but at a much higher rate.

Dr. Cable

I shall happily guide the Minister to the surveys that have been carried out, I think, by an amalgamation of chambers of commerce.

Mr. Bellingham

It is not just a question of the premiums going up very sharply; a number of companies have had to restrict greatly the categories of business that they continue to conduct. For example, a small specialist construction firm on the south coast requires £5 million of cover to secure contracts from its regular customers, but it has been able to secure only £1 million of cover this year at a cost of £8,000, whereas £12,000 bought £10 million of cover last year. That specialist company is now contracting out work and getting rid of employees. It is facing a crisis, as are many other companies.

Dr. Cable

That is an accurate description of what is happening. I know that the Minister is supervising an inquiry in his Department, which is very welcome, and which is due to report very soon, perhaps in March. I hope that, when that report is available, we shall be provided with a good analysis of the problem, why it has arisen and the best way to deal with it. Perhaps then the Bill will be seen to be helpful, but I think that the problems lie elsewhere.

The conduct of the insurance industry itself should be considered. Despite the fact that the life insurance industry is in terrible trouble, normal commercial insurance is currently rather profitable. It is worth considering how the insurance companies have dealt with their clients, because that has caused a good deal of hardship and disruption.

As has already been mentioned, "no win, no fee" litigation is also imposing costs. That is partly an issue for the Government because of the way in which the Lord Chancellor's Department, in effect, sets the compensation tariff. That interlocking series of policy issues must be addressed. I am not sure whether the Bill is helpful, but we need to wait for the outcome of the Minister's inquiry before we decide what is the most productive way forward.

I should be happy to support hits of the Bill, but I am less happy with other provisions. However, at least we would benefit from considering the Bill in Committee to find out how it could be augmented and improved.

1.37 pm

Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk)

I certainly congratulate the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) on introducing the Bill, which he has obviously put a great deal of thought and effort into. I am a retread, and those of us who have been involved with previous private Members' Bills know only too well that they require a great deal of effort and a huge of amount of consultation with different organisations and bodies. There is no question but that the hon. Gentleman has put a lot of work into the Bill.

It is a great pity that the Company Directors' Performance and Compensation Bill was not given a proper debate. It is bizarre that a rather scurrilous, squalid attempt was made to scupper that Bill, which, I am afraid, succeeded. I do not understand the motives for that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We are now considering this Bill, and the hon. Gentleman ought to deal with it.

Mr. Bellingham

Of course I will. Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is very important to put the Bill into context. If the other Bill had not been scuppered, we would still be discussing it. I wish to make it clear that that was not the fault of the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby; he is a very genuine, honest person, and I am sure that he had nothing whatever to do with what happened.

Mr. Bercow

Decent.

Mr. Bellingham

He is a decent person, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) rightly points out.

All that is history, but I am sure that there will be various post-mortems into what happened, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) is given a change at some stage to reintroduce his Bill.

The wider economy forms the background to the Bill, because no Bill that affects businesses, particularly small and medium-sized businesses, can be judged without taking a very close look at it. There is no doubt in my mind that the current macro-economy is starting to stall as part of the global slowdown: we need only look at the way that stock markets have reacted in the past 11 days or so. Very serious concerns exist about the fragile nature of our economy and we must examine the Bill in that context. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) has made clear, the Bill will have regulatory implications. All businesses, large and small, are very concerned about the forthcoming national insurance increases, which will take place in the spring, around the time that this Bill would be introduced. The avalanche of red tape and bureaucracy that is piling down on businesses is having the biggest impact on corporate Britain at the moment.

We all know that a framework of health and safety legislation is needed. It is interesting, however, that while in the United States every effort is being made to combat the fall in consumer confidence and in stock markets by examining measures to reduce regulatory burdens and to cut taxes, Britain and the EU appear to be going in the opposite direction. What is unfortunate is that the UK supply side economy was previously the envy of Europe. In terms of burdens on business, our regime was probably the most sensibly balanced anywhere in Europe and, consequently, we attracted a great deal of inward investment. Obviously, that was important to small firms. That was why, in the opinion of many pundits and experts, this country has done so well over the past few years. We had an excellent supply side, and a Chancellor who, until recently, had control of public finances. We had flourishing small firms and a light regulatory touch that was very much part of the reforms introduced by the previous Government.

As for red tape and burdens on business, taken individually, they are not showstoppers or deal breakers, but the drip, drip, drip—the accumulated impact—of those burdens is starting to have an effect. Some of those burdens on business are manifestly home-grown. The Employment Relations Act 1999 has led to a flurry of statutory instruments; indeed, I was involved in considering one of those—the regulations on maternity, paternity and adoption—the other day in Committee. Compliance with such regulations is fine for bigger organisations—firms such as ICI or SmithKline Beecham—which have large human resources departments. However, a small company, which will also be impacted by the Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am prepared to allow a certain degree of reference to background in a Second Reading debate, but the hon. Gentleman should relate his remarks to the Bill fairly soon.

Mr. Nicholas Brown

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. It was not a point of order. I was simply putting the hon. Gentleman on the right track.

Mr. Brown

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would it be right for me to point out to the House that the Bill does not alter the regulations imposed on business at all? It relates to the penalty regime.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is not a point of order for the Chair but more a matter for debate. The right hon. Gentleman has made the point.

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

My hon. Friend has painted a clear picture of the burden of regulation on small businesses. Does he agree that the sheer rate and volume of regulation, and regulatory changes, make it difficult for business to keep in touch with what is happening, so there is a great risk of inadvertent breach of the rules, for which people could even be liable to imprisonment?

Mr. Bellingham

That is a fair point. Again, my hon. Friend shows prescience, because I will come to that in a moment.

The average small business man now spends up to 14 hours a week dealing with paperwork and form filling. Many businesses have taken years to build up, and many have been passed down the generations, and the law of unintended consequences following the enactment of the Bill could mean the end for them. That is what I am extremely anxious to avoid.

Mr. Bercow

My hon. Friend is developing his arguments in his usual measured way. Does he accept that it is important not to compromise the Conservative commitment to, or record on, health and safety at work, a useful adumbrated summary of which can be found in that excellent tome "Conservative Social and Industrial Reform" edited by Mr. Charles Bellairs?

Mr. Bellingham

I expect that there will be snow on the ground and little to do outside this weekend, so I will follow my hon. Friend's advice and go home equipped with that volume to study. He is absolutely right, because the whole thrust of our policy is not to bear down on existing health and safety legislation but to reconsider some of the other burdens on business. I am sure that he will agree that we do not want to make the health and safety regime any harsher, as we probably have the right balance in place for business, employees and the wider public who may have contractual relations with businesses and could be the victims of injuries.

Mr. Bercow

I assure my hon. Friend that there need be no disharmony between us on this or any other matter. Does he agree that it is also important to establish clarity as we contemplate legislation? In that context, what assessment has he made of paragraph 12 on page 2 of the explanatory notes, in which reference is made to the intended replacement of the current maximum fine of £2,500 "for each day prosecuted" with a maximum fine of £20,000? Could not the significance of the words "for each day prosecuted" be very great for an accidentally errant firm?

Mr. Bellingham

I spotted that as well. Again, my hon. Friend shows prescience because I shall come in a moment to the issue of fines and the threat of prison sentences. First, however, I want to flag up one further set of regulations that have arisen from the Government's legislation, which I would describe as home-grown red tape. I refer to the flexible contracts regime. Although a larger corporation could cater for and cope with that, a small contracting business of perhaps 10 employees—a firm with an excellent record of avoiding accidents, which implements a regime that goes far beyond that proposed in the Bill—could, albeit in extraordinary circumstances, become involved in some accident and, as a consequence, suffer a heavy fine. Such small firms might find it difficult to cope with demand for flexible contracts. That is another reason why we feel strongly that the Government have gone too far on the supply side of the economy. Moreover, a great deal of legislation has arisen as a result of the social chapter, to which the Government signed up when they first came into power—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is again straying wide of the mark.

Mr. Bellingham

I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Page 5 of the Bill makes it clear that the social chapter is relevant, but I shall not push my luck with you. I merely point out that the sort of firms that the Bill would catch will be affected by the agency workers directive and the equal treatment directive. Such directives are coming down the track at an alarming rate and will hit corporate Britain very hard.

Mr. Bercow

I do not want to go down the wrong path any more than my hon. Friend wanted to do so. We all take note of your exhortations in these circumstances, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but does my hon. Friend recall that the working time directive—I shall relate that directly to this important Bill—was justified at the time of its introduction by many of our European Union partners by reference to health and safety considerations, which, as all hon. Members present know, are subject to qualified majority voting? Is it not pertinent to ask the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn)—or through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Minister for Work—whether the Bill's provisions would, at European level, be subject to majority voting under the social chapter? That is relevant when considering whether we should take this measure further and into Committee.

Mr. Bellingham

I agree with my hon. Friend; the Bill needs to go into Committee and be discussed in more detail.

Perhaps even two years ago, before various additional burdens were imposed as a result of the social chapter, one might have said that businesses could easily live with this legislation. We should consider the Bill in the context of legislation that might not immediately impose regulatory burdens on business but could do so if things started to go wrong. That is the background of today's businesses. There is serious wealth destruction in the small firms sector, which is why the Government have said that the key test that they will apply to any new measure is whether it will hit wealth creation. Perhaps that is why this is not a Government Bill, but the Government have instead chosen to rely on a Back Bencher to promote the Bill as a handout.

I have explored the wider business context, which is important. Although you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were slightly irked when I strayed a bit too widely on two occasions, which is understandable, when a Bill affects business it is incumbent on hon. Members to examine the wider business context in which the Bill is to operate. My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham talked about the compensation culture, which appears to have got completely out of control in this country, and he rightly mentioned the crisis in public liability insurance. Employer and public liability insurance premiums have gone through the roof. Although we are pleased to see him here, I was slightly concerned when the Minister for Work said that his report would come out in late spring or early summer, because the crisis is happening now. I shall remind the House of the two cases that I mentioned earlier, because they are not one-off cases. I have been in close contact with the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business and several other organisations that have been feeding me and other hon. Members horror stories about what is happening.

A small specialist construction firm on the south coast requires insurance cover of £5 million to secure contracts from its regular customers. This year, that business was able to secure cover of only £1 million at a cost of £8,000, whereas last year £12,000 bought cover for £10 million. As we speak, the firm, which is in the specialist contract hire business, is getting rid of employees and restructuring its business entirely. It has had to tell a number of its key customers, "Sorry, but we cannot trade with you."

That is a classic example of a firm that has faced an extremely difficult choice: whether to continue to serve the customers that it has successfully served for many years, or to tell those customers that because it cannot get insurance, it is having to get rid of staff and turn away business. Many firms have taken the first option and are now trading illegally, which is extremely unfortunate and we cannot condone it.

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.

Mr. Hoban

I am sorry to intervene on my hon. Friend again, but the explanatory notes state clearly that the current maximum fine of £2,500 for each day prosecuted is being replaced with a maximum fine of £20,000. Therefore, we are dealing not with a toolbox but with a change in the legislation that reduces the number of tools available to the judge in such cases.

Mr. Bellingham

Indeed, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for picking up that point. The measure is perverse because, on the one hand, it will create a much tougher and more onerous regime that includes the possibility of imprisonment, and on the other hand, whereas it is currently possible in some of the more extreme cases to mete out a tougher fine, the Bill raises the possibility of the court only being able to mete out a less tough fine. That strikes me as perverse.

Mr. Bercow

The purpose of these exchanges is to clarify and not to obfuscate. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be genuinely helpful if the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) could clarify that point? From my point of view, the fog has intensified, and the reference to the toolbox has served not to illuminate, but to obscure.

Mr. Bellingham

I do not doubt that the toolbox of the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby is full of kit, and when Opposition Members have finished speaking perhaps he could wrap up some of these points and put that toolbox to good use.

I return to the crisis that we are facing as regards small firms and insurance premiums. I mentioned a steel fabrication business in the Deputy Prime Minister's constituency, which has been forced to make five people redundant. As we speak, it may well be looking at the possibility of ceasing to trade, because its combined public liability and employers liability insurance bill has increased from £3,600 to £28,000. I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will visit that firm and explain to those who work there why this crisis has taken place, because every organisation that I have spoken to is very concerned about the problems faced by the small firms sector—especially the heavier, more specialist end of the construction sector.

I quoted remarks that the Minister with responsibility for small business, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), made on 5 December, when he said that the Government were concerned about the matter and would take action. He said that the Treasury had put in place a report; the Department for Work and Pensions was conducting an inquiry; the Office of Fair Trading was looking at the matter; and an independent report was being prepared. Let me remind the Minister for Work that there is a crisis right now. Members of the Federation of Small Businesses have told me in no uncertain terms that they do not want reports in the spring or early summer; they want action now, because many of those firms will not last until the spring or early summer. Is there any possibility of those reports being consolidated? I do not understand why we need four. The Minister is known for his strong leadership and the way in which he gripped, for example, the foot and mouth crisis. Perhaps he could grip this crisis too, consolidate those four reports and, in a matter of weeks rather than months, come up with a definitive statement on what is needed.

I mentioned that the Bill was ill-timed and premature, because those four reports are in the preparation pool. We want the Bill to pass into Committee, but it is premature for the Government to come forward with what is basically a Government Bill with the help of a Back-Bench Member, at a time of huge uncertainty and when there is the prospect of the reports being published in the near future.

I also said that the Bill was draconian. Raising the fine to such a level does not make sense; nor does creating the option of prison for health and safety offences in the lower and higher courts. When prisons are full to bursting point, do we really need to imprison small business men and women—company directors—who have committed offences of this nature? I would question that. We may well want to fine them. We might want to strike them off and prevent them from being company directors again. There may be other measures that would deter such offences. However, prison is needed to harbour dangerous criminals and to act as a deterrent to prevent very serious crime.

Mr. Bercow

I strongly agree with the point that my hon. Friend is making. Does he accept not only that it would be inappropriate to impose custodial sentences, but that such a provision would exacerbate the phenomenon of prison overcrowding, the effect of which is to undermine rehabilitation programmes in prison for persistent offenders? The Government are supposed to be committed to such programmes, but the Bill's casual drafting imperils that important objective.

Mr. Bellingham

I agree that it is casual drafting and it sparks off an anti-business streak, which I find very distasteful. We all know that the overwhelming majority of small business men and women work incredibly hard in difficult conditions. They employ a large number of people, perhaps 35 per cent. of the entire work force. As a result of the Bill, the prospect of prison would hang over a percentage—albeit a very small percentage—of those who commit offences. Employers who follow worst practice or have been personally responsible for serious injuries and accidents occurring certainly need help, but they also need to be prevented from going back into business. Ironically, the Bill would mean that they could go to prison for six weeks, come out and carry on exactly as before. There is no provision in the Bill for having them struck off so that they cannot become company directors again, and can be prevented from owning a business.

The Minister is on record as saying in a debate only two or three months ago, when we discussed corporate manslaughter, that there is a huge amount of uncertainty in respect of the Government's attitude to corporate manslaughter and we need clarification. It cannot be right to introduce a Bill that imprisons business men at a time when the Government are conducting another review. When I intervened on the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who has now left the Chamber, probably to have a bowl of soup before returning to his constituency, I asked him about the HSE report on the Potters Bar rail crash. Although an interim report has been produced, we are still awaiting the final report on that crash, which took place in May 2002. Constituents of mine who were injured on that train are extremely concerned about the time that report is taking.

Another reason why it is premature to introduce this Bill now is that the Government are looking at all aspects of corporate manslaughter. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that if he has time to reply to the debate.

I have troubled the House for half an hour and I know that others are waiting to speak, so I shall conclude my speech. I congratulate the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby on the work and effort that he has put into the Bill. He has obviously made a great effort to talk to many different business organisations. Not all of them are completely on side or in favour of what he is trying to do; they are concerned, for various reasons, including the overwhelming reason, which is that small and medium enterprises face a crisis as a result of insurance premium hikes. Until that crisis can be resolved, or examined by the Government in a systematic and comprehensive way, it would be premature to move any Bill quickly into law. I hope the Minister will comment on that. I wish the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby well and hope that the Bill goes into Committee, there is proper debate on it and that the good parts of it become law.

2.8 pm

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)

One cannot but feel a lot of sympathy for the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn). I have no doubt that the history is fairly clear. Here was an innocent little Government handout Bill designed to tidy, as the Government saw it, a small part of the health and safety world. They found a ready, willing and dedicated—

Ian Stewart (Eccles)

And able.

Mr. Forth

Indeed, and an able person in the shape of the promoter. When he saw the running order for today, I am sure that he felt rather confident that this measure would slip quietly through the House with barely a ripple, as is often the hope on the Labour Benches.

Our sympathy for the hon. Gentleman stems from the fact that he has run into one of these occasions when, happily, a Friday springs surprises. Parliamentary Fridays are a delight to us dedicated fans and anoraks, as almost anything can happen, and today almost anything has. Indeed, almost anything may still happen—I would not be at all surprised. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) put his finger on it. We all witnessed a quite disgraceful little episode. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby was seeking to explain in a full, calm, dedicated and passionate way what the Bill meant to him and his constituents, but he was bullied by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who was selfishly looking at his rather pathetic little Bill further down the Order Paper and seeking to truncate the hon. Gentleman's speech persuading the House about the Bill. Even before the debate started and we got into our stride, we were denied a full explanation of the Bill's contents by its promoter because of the behaviour of the hon. Member for Hendon, whose Bill does not have a hope in hell.

Mr. Hoban

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the Bill's sponsors, who include, ironically, the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore)?

Mr. Forth

The ironies abound. I have not seen too many of the Bill's other sponsors today. I shall not name names—that would be invidious, even for me—but the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby must feel a little lonely as he casts his eye over the acres of green leather, looking in vain for the Bill's sponsors. We can assume that there is not much enthusiasm for the Bill among Government Members, who are not greatly evident by their physical presence and do not appear to be prepared to give the hon. Gentleman any support. We have not heard a word from any of them, and very few are seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I am setting the scene, as it is important that we understand the context in which Bills are introduced in the House before we start to analyse them. I hope to dig into the depths of the Bill, but time is short and I do not want to deny my hon. Friends the opportunity to speak, although there is a risk of that.

Mr. Bercow

My right hon. Friend chided Government Members for their failure of collegiality and their failure to support the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn). Does he not think it lamentable and evidence of a lack of esprit de corps that the hon. Gentleman is not supported even by his boss, the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander)? The hon. Gentleman labours for his boss, but his boss stabs him in the back—what a way to behave!

Mr. Forth

I could easily be diverted into making comments about the lack of collegiality among Government Members, but I will not, as I shall do so next Tuesday in the debate on reform of the House of Lords. However, I will not be distracted, even by my hon. Friend, from talking about the Bill.

We missed some nuggets from the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby—I bet that they were in his toolbox—including an analysis of why the Bill would be beneficial. He expressed his hopes, desires and aspirations, and tugged at our heart strings when he talked about his constituents and experience—all good stuff—but what we really wanted was analysis and an international comparison of health and safety in Britain and other countries.

In the dim and distant past, I had some responsibility for the Health and Safety Executive, as I had the honour of serving in the old Department of Employment between 1990 and 1992. I was proud to make excellent speeches—they were excellent because my civil servants wrote them—praising this country's health and safety record. We therefore have to be careful about saying that because our record is deplorable and disgraceful we have got to tighten the screw, increase fines and perhaps impose more imprisonment. Internationally, a case has not been made for that. There has not been any attempt, either, to address sectoral issues—as we know, the health and safety record varies enormously from one sector to another. If the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby had been allowed a bit more time by his hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, who is not even in the Chamber now, he would have been able to develop those arguments. But lacking, as we do, all these arguments, we have to look at the Bill a bit more objectively and conduct our own analysis of it.

For example, the simple raising of fines is assumed to be some sort of beneficial mechanism, and is assumed to have a deterrent effect. I am not sure that the case is self-evident. We have to consider who pays the fines. If we look at the hierarchical structure in the construction industry, for example, and in many others as well, we see that the people who deliver health and safety in a meaningful sense are relatively low in the hierarchy, if I am allowed to speak in such incorrect terms these days—people who do real jobs on the construction site and have a real involvement in health and safety. However, it is almost certainly someone else who will end up paying the fines. There is the danger of a disconnect between those who will suffer the penalty—the increased penalty, if the Bill goes through—and those who have the real responsibility for delivering health and safety.

Mr. George Osborne

There is a question about the effectiveness of fines. A National Audit Office study—I see the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee sitting next to my right hon. Friend—found that 40 per cent. of fines levied by courts are never collected, so it is legitimate to question whether fines are an effective mechanism in the criminal justice system.

Mr. Forth

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is an extremely relevant point. There is a glib assumption that if we increase the rate of fines, people will have their minds concentrated, they will do what we want them to do, and that will be the end of the matter.

Mr. Bercow

rose

Mr. Leigh

rose

Mr. Forth

Before I give way to my hon. Friends—my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) in particular may have something to add—I should finish the point.

The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby made a passing reference to conviction rates in his abbreviated opening speech, which his hon. Friend the Member for Hendon did not allow him to complete. That was an important point, but it was not developed. Related to the question of whether fines are ever collected, there is the prior matter of whether convictions are obtained for the offences outlined at some length in the Bill. If convictions are not obtained and fines are not collected, I fail to see how a case can be made for the provisions in the Bill.

Mr. Bercow

What my right hon. Friend says about conviction is of the essence, but, notwithstanding the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), is it not possible—indeed, likely—that the promoter has taken account of the possible ineffectiveness of the fines regime by providing the backstop power of imprisonment? If my right hon. Friend is prepared to concede that that backstop power is available, is it not incumbent on the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby to assure us that there is honesty in sentencing, and that imprisonment would apply without causing the overcrowding that I and others fear?

Mr. Forth

I was about to come to that. By my count, there are 13 additional imprisonable offences outlined in the Bill. That is a considerable broadening of the number of possibilities for imprisonment, yet the explanatory notes—always a rich seam of information on such Bills—imply the contrary in paragraph 17. I suspect that the promoter will want to deny authorship once he hears what I have to say.

The Minister boasted that his Department had written the explanatory notes. That is an oddity, for a start. Here we are on a Friday, allegedly discussing private Members' Bills—in this case a Bill sponsored by private Members, most of whom are not present—yet the explanatory notes are written by the Department. That gives us a clue as to what is really going on.

In the inadequate explanatory notes that the promoter did not write, we read—this follows directly from the point just made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham: Making imprisonment available for more health and safety offences is expected to lead to a minimal increase in the prison population. How does the Department know that? That is the first question that we have to ask. Imprisonment is a matter for the courts. How can even a Minister, who obviously drafted the notes on a rather bad day, know what the effect is likely to be? Furthermore, if it is so minimal, why are we bothering with it? We are caught in a paradox. It is one thing to argue that the provision will be phenomenonally successful and that lots of people will be banged up for health and safety offences, but we are being told that hardly anybody will be imprisoned. That hardly makes it sound as though the measure will be effective.

Mr. Leigh

I must put the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) into context. It is true that only about half the fines are paid, but that will not be the problem in this case—these are business men and they will pay their fines. Although very few would go to prison, the threat would still be in place. I return to the point that I made in an earlier intervention: the provision will place undue burdens on business, which is continually told by numerous consultants that it must do this or that. That often affects small businesses in particular. These are new regulatory burdens that would add to the burden on business.

Mr. Forth

My hon. Friend has got ahead of me slightly. In a moment, I shall deal with paragraph 19 of the explanatory notes, which touches on the very matter to which he refers.

However, I have not yet finished with paragraph 17. We are aware of the paradox about whether more people will go to prison and of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has made more than once regarding the possible effect on prisons, but, intriguingly, the paragraph goes on to state: Making two offences which are triable only in the lower courts into 'either way' offences (triable in the lower or the higher courts), could lead to a few additional cases being heard in the higher courts. That tells us that the courts, which are already under enormous pressure, will be under more pressure as a result of the Bill.

Assuming that we believe what is set out in the explanatory notes to be true, we can begin to see the cumulative effects of what might happen. The courts will be doing more work, more people will be going to prison and more fines will be imposed, although they probably will not be collected. Yet the whole emphasis of the notes is to say, "Don't worry folks; not much will really happen." Until the Minister gets to his feet or seeks to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we will be in a complete fog about what is in his mind and his intentions, although they are not really his intentions, because this is not really his Bill. In fact, therefore, he will have to guess what was in the promoter's mind in drafting the Bill.

On paragraph 18—

Mr. Hoban

Before my right hon. Friend moves on, I should like to draw his attention to a statement at the end of paragraph 17: The public sector is generally exempt from the 1969 Act. We are being told that the legislation would hit the private sector, but not the public sector.

Mr. Forth

I hope that that is not true. Again, we might hope for clarification from the promoter or the Minister in that regard. It would be very odd if it were true, given that the Government seem hellbent on renationalising large sectors of our economy, which presumably means that the public sector will expand into some of the very areas in respect of which we should be most concerned about health and safety. That is another lacuna that requires explanation.

I shall not dwell on that point, however, because I am very eager to get on to some other aspects of the explanatory notes that have caught my eye. Paragraph 18 states: The Bill will have no significant manpower implications for the Health and Safety Executive". Why not? If the provisions are going to make everything more effective, might not more people be needed? [Interruption.] We are all welcoming the hon. Member for Dismore back into the Chamber—[Laughter.] I apologise, I meant to say Hendon. Perhaps the hon. Member for Hendon is going to bully his hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby yet again, as he is sitting rather threateningly behind him. I hope that he will not try to prevent his hon. Friend from making a winding-up speech. When the time comes for the winding-up speeches, after my hon. Friends and the Minister have spoken, and when I have completed my remarks, we may see whether the hon. Member for Hendon is able to prevent his hon. Friend from winding up the debate. I hope that he does not do so.

Mr. Bercow

My right hon. Friend read out to the House only part of paragraph 18. He told us that the Bill would have no significant manpower implications for the Health and Safety Executive, but I am sure that he was about to point out that it will also have no significant manpower implications for the criminal justice system. How is that compatible with paragraph 8, which advises us that At present, imprisonment is an option only in certain cases. The Bill will make imprisonment available for most health and safety offences. Is not there a problem of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing?

Mr. Forth

My hon. Friend is rightly famed for his ability to think of many things at once. I can think of only one at once. I therefore had to consider the paragraphs seriatim rather than at the same time. I was talking about the Health and Safety Executive; I shall briefly comment on the criminal justice system later.

Throughout the explanatory notes, the arguments appear to be "on the one hand, on the other hand." For example, the Bill provides for more fines, but they probably will not be collected. Under the measure, not many more people will go to prison, yet it is supposed to be a deterrent. We are told that although a significant improvement in health and safety will ensue, not many more people will work for the HSE.

It has been admitted that additional cases are expected in the higher courts. That means delays in other cases in the higher courts. That is another unintended consequence of the Bill. Neither the promoter nor the Minister foresaw it.

We have finished the starters, so let us get on to the main course. Paragraph 19 of the explanatory notes states: The Bill will not impose new requirements on business. That is unbelievable. If there is any hope of the Bill making a material improvement in health and safety in the workplace, how can it not impose new requirements on business? The statement is ridiculous and frankly untrue. Paragraph 19 continues: A Regulatory Impact Assessment is not, therefore, required. How do people know that the measure will not impose new requirements if they have not attempted to make an impact assessment?

The more I read the explanatory notes, the more I believe that we should know the identity of the author. Is it the Minister? When he winds up the debate, I hope that he will admit authorship. I hope that the promoter does not want to claim authorship, given the inconsistencies.

The statement in paragraph 19 that the Bill will not impose new requirements cannot be true. The annexe to the explanatory notes sets out matters that may be subject to fines and so on. They include a duty not to interfere with or misuse things provided for health and safety. Those who have such a duty will have to put in place procedures and possibly additional manpower to ensure that they can adhere properly to such requirements or go to prison. Another item in the annexe reads: Contravening any requirement imposed by an inspector under section 20 (eg. to give information … or to leave premises undisturbed after an incident)".

The requirements are proper. It is implied that if they are not being fulfilled now, the new regime of fines and potential imprisonment will mean that people adhere to them more closely in future. How can that be done without additional burdens on business? My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) rightly drew attention to that.

Mr. Bellingham

The specialist contractor in the Deputy Prime Minister's constituency whose insurance premium is going through the roof will have to appoint expensive consultants to advise him on the Bill. It will probably result in a thick wad of paper that requires many ticks in many boxes. That will surely have a regulatory impact. I am at a loss to understand why the explanatory notes state that no regulatory impact assessment is required. That makes no sense.

Mr. Forth

If my hon. Friend, whose expertise in such matters is legendary, cannot understand it, then what hope have I of understanding it? That is my difficulty.

I want to break off from my brief and superficial analysis of that part of the Bill and get stuck into the second part. We all know that the health and safety aspect is vital, as the promoter so eloquently set out—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order.

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 7 February.