HL Deb 12 February 1992 vol 535 cc808-17

8.43 p.m.

Baroness Turner of Camden

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I should perhaps explain to your Lordships why I felt it necessary to introduce a Private Member's Bill on the subject of offshore safety when we have only recently debated and passed the Government's Offshore Safety Bill. The fact is, however, that that Bill was very narrowly drafted: it was a technical Bill concerned with health and safety and it was so narrowly drafted that it was not possible to accommodate within it the concerns addressed by my Bill. Of course, we on this side of the House supported the Government's Bill and attempted to amend it in Committee to deal with the matter of victimisation or possible victimisation of employees, but the amendments were deemed to be out of order because they dealt with employment matters rather than health and safety issues.

The Offshore Safety Bill, as your Lordships will recall, was introduced by the Government to give effect to some of the recommendations of the honourable Lord Cullen in his report on the appalling Piper Alpha disaster. In that accident 165 employees on board the installation were killed, and two members of the crew of a rescue craft. The inquiry under Lord Cullen was an extensive one and the report massive, much of it highly technical. It does serve to indicate, even to lay persons such as myself, that impressive as the scientific and technical achievements are, the operations are extremely hazardous, although economically very beneficial to this country.

The Piper Alpha disaster hit the headlines because it was so utterly dreadful, with a devastating effect upon the communities from which the employees concerned came; but relatively minor incidents, some of them leading to deaths and injuries, have been fairly frequent occurrences. I have here a list of incidents which took place at around the same time as the Piper Alpha disaster, from July 1988 to November 1989. There were about 30 incidents, some causing work to be halted for quite long periods and including two incidents leading to deaths and injuries.

In my Second Reading speech on the Government's Offshore Safety Bill on 14th November last, at col. 668, I referred to an accident and fire on an oil rig operated by Arco British, which resulted in the death of an operative and which led to a report which indicated that the accident could have been avoided if those in charge of the rig had operated proper control. And this incident took place very shortly after the Piper Alpha disaster, when everyone concerned should have been even more than usually alert to what might happen.

It is for this reason that the report by the honourable Lord Cullen is so important. Of course we are glad that some of his recommendations were embodied in the Government's Bill. We welcome all the innovations and the new regulatory system that is being put in place, but in one crucial respect the recommendations of the honourable Lord Cullen have not been contained in legislation; and that is the reason for my Bill. One of the most important sections of the Cullen report refers to what he calls the creation of a "safety culture". He believes that it is essential to involve the whole of the workforce in safety observance. He further says that the most visible instrument for the involvement of the workforce in safety is a safety committee system. He says that his remit does not extend to industrial relations, but he also says that trade union recognition is limited and employment of offshore workers is fragmented between a number of different employers, with a high proportion being employed by contractors. Many of the individuals concerned are employed on short-term contracts.

My Bill does not deal with industrial relations either, although I would say in passing that it is my belief that the employees would have far less fear of victimisation if there were widespread union recognition and proper union involvement in the election and training of safety representatives. The unions, to my certain knowledge, have been very willing to undertake such a task and the Cullen Report makes some favourable references to this.

However, Lord Cullen clearly understands that if the workforce is to be fully involved in safety, and particularly if individuals are to be found who are willing to serve as safety representatives, there must be some assurance that if they attempt to do a "safety" job conscientiously they will not risk losing their employment, and that they will not find, at the end of their short-term contract—and many of them, as I said earlier, are employed on short-term contracts—that it is not renewed for some unaccountable reason, which they may believe is because they have been too ready to point out breaches of safety regulations or possible health hazards.

That is particularly important in situations where there is still high unemployment. That is true of Scotland, for example, where much of the oil industry is based. If there are hundreds of people waiting to take your job if your contract is not renewed, pointing out safety hazards may not rank as highly as the need to keep the job no matter what the conditions. Therefore, it becomes even more important to give protection to people who otherwise may feel vulnerable.

In his report, at paragraph 21.86, Lord Cullen said: For the present I am satisfied that it is appropriate that the type of protection provided in the case of trade union activities under Section 58(1) (b) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 should also be afforded to the activities of an employee acting as a safety representative". He repeats that in his final recommendations.

That is what my Bill seeks to achieve. It is very simple. On the Second Reading of the Government's Offshore Safety Bill, the Minister indicated that the Government accept all the recommendations of the Cullen Report but that they could not deal with this recommendation within the narrowly technical Bill then before the House. Therefore, I hope that the Government will now feel it possible to support the Bill.

I have received distinguished professional assistance in drafting the Bill, but if it is felt that there are technical flaws, perhaps they can be dealt with in Committee. I should be happy to support any amendments designed to improve the Bill. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Baroness Turner of Camden.)

8.52 p.m.

Lord Rochester

My Lords, from these Benches I am delighted to speak briefly in support of the Bill. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, on the convincing way in which she introduced it.

When we debated the Government's Offshore Safety Bill at the end of last year other noble Lords and I considered that a number of other matters should have been included in the Bill. For example, I recall saying that I should have liked to see some reference made to the need for all employees to be involved in the promotion of safety at work.

However, there was one matter to which we all referred; namely, the need to ensure that all employees working on offshore installations were protected against victimisation when acting as safety representatives or as members of safety committees. We said that because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said, in his report on the Piper Alpha disaster Lord Cullen made the specific recommendation that such provisions should be afforded by means of a provision similar to that found in Section 58 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.

At all stages of the passage of the Offshore Safety Bill the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, insisted, first, that the Government accepted all the recommendations of the Cullen Report and, secondly, that because the recommendation concerning victimisation was an employment issue and therefore fell outside the scope of the Bill, the Government intended to deal with the matter as soon as a suitable legislative vehicle presented itself.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, pointed out at the time, that meant that, meanwhile, safety representatives would he left without statutory protection. Thanks to the initiative which has now been taken—and I quote once more the noble Viscount's phrase—a suitable legislative vehicle presents itself to deal with the matter of victimisation. Therefore, I hope that he will now prove as good as his word and will, on behalf of the Government, welcome the Bill.

As the noble Baroness said at the end of her remarks, it may be that there are some technical deficiencies in the Bill or it is not sufficiently comprehensive. In that case I join with the noble Baroness in hoping that the Minister will accept the principle and perhaps table any amendments on behalf of the Government, which may be needed, in Committee.

8.55 p.m.

Lord McCarthy

My Lords, it will not surprise the House to learn that the Opposition welcome this Bill. We support it and we thank my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden for introducing it. As my noble friend said, the objectives of the Bill could not be simpler. They are to provide the normal minimal protection for safety representatives who complain of acts, on the part of their employer, which may be illegal and which may cost lives, especially if they complain through their trade unions or through the inspectorate.

Of course, those people will have to prove their case and will have to prove that the principal reason for their dismissal is that they have made those complaints. They must prove that that is the sole or principal reason for their dismissal. This is a very simple Bill and extremely limited in its operation.

Indeed, someone from outside looking at our debates and looking at the situation may wonder why a provision of this kind has not existed before. They may wonder why it was not included when the Health and Safety at Work Act was first enacted. They may wonder why, when the provisions of the Act were applied to offshore operations in 1977, it was not included at that time. They may wonder why we have had to wait for such a long time and the appearance of the Cullen Report.

What is being suggested here is minimal and limited but, nevertheless, extremely necessary. I remind the House that because the recommendation concerned is recommendation 30 of the Cullen Report, that does not mean that it is relatively unimportant. Indeed, I argue that it is somewhere near the centre of what Lord Cullen is saying. We must remember that the central thrust of the Piper Alpha report was that what happened was not an accident in the pure sense of the word. It was not something which may well not have happened. The whole industrial relations and safety situation on the rig was a disaster waiting to happen.

Lord Cullen mentioned five defects or irresponsibilities on the part of the consortium or its management which led to the disaster: the failure to communicate about the removal of the safety valve; the failure of the emergency system which was supposed to deal with that situation; the failure of the water supply; the failure to foresee the effect of the smoke which was generated and which made air rescue impossible; and the failure to supervise an alternative escape by sea.

Those mistakes were not just mistakes of management. There was a failure on the part of the Department of Energy's inspection system. That was superficial and inadequate even after the Piper Alpha disaster. When Lord Cullen recommended three measures which should be taken to solve that problem, the third and, in some ways, the most important measure led directly to the provisions of this Bill.

Lord Cullen said that there should be new regulations. Secondly, he said that there should be a transfer of responsibility from the Department of Energy to the Health and Safety Executive. Most important, he said that there had to be the development of a safety culture. In the development of a safety culture, as my noble friend Lady Turner said, Lord Cullen said that it was central to have the right attitudes between management and the workers for the development of that culture and the development of a climate of involvement of the workforce in safety as a central concern.

Paragraph 18.48—it has already been quoted and I do not apologise for quoting it again—says, Possibly the most visible instrument for the involvement of the workforce in safety is a safety committee system". Why? Because it can pass, uncensored safety comments up the management line". That brings us centrally to recommendation 30. How are uncensored safety comments to be passed up the management line unless there is some degree of protection for those people and their representatives?

We must therefore ask: what have been the Government's reactions so far? As the House is aware, we tried to introduce amendments to deal with this issue during the passage of the Government's Bill. The amendments did not reach the Floor of the House because we were told that the Bill was a safety Bill and we were proposing industrial relations. What did the Government say? After all, they had taken a long time to proceed as far as they had with the Bill. The disaster occurred on 6th July 1988. The inquiry was set up and reported to the Government in November 1990. Over two years had been lost. Another year was lost until the Government introduced the Bill to this House. On 14th November last, at col. 677 of the Official Report, the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, said that while the Government accepted all 106 recommendations, number 30 fell outside the scope of the Bill we were discussing. He added: We shall deal with the matter of victimisation as soon as a suitable legislative vehicle presents itself". The question we must decide today is what is a suitable vehicle and, in particular, what is wrong with the vehicle we are now presenting to the Government. As we understand the replies of the Minister—I do not want to misunderstand him—he seemed to be suggesting that an appropriate vehicle could be the tenth labour relations Act, if the Government survive. It would be a successor to 1980, 1982, 1984 and so on. But that is not in the White Paper; it is not so far in the public pronouncements. If the Government say this evening that that is the first sign of a suitable vehicle, then we shall have to wait until some time in 1993, if the Government survive.

Secondly, the Government may be saying—at one stage in the passage of the Bill the Minister seemed to be saying—that we must wait for the Government to implement the EC framework directive on safety. God knows when that will be.

Thirdly, in the same debate in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, the noble Viscount appeared to be suggesting that the Government could not be expected to do anything about the matter until they brought before the House the results of their inquiries into the 1989 regulations review. Again, we do not know when that will be.

What is being said by the Opposition this evening in support of the Bill is that it must surely be the most appropriate vehicle and the most suitable moment. All the Government need do is accept the Bill—not necessarily as it stands but with amendments. Nevertheless, accept the Bill! This is surely the most suitable and appropriate moment.

I wish to make one further point. The Minister said that the Government accepted all 106 recommendations of Lord Cullen. On page 392 of Volume Two of the report five recommendations are listed. Three of those five do not involve any legislation at all. Therefore we are only talking about recommendation 30, which is the recommendation embodied in the Bill: Safety representatives should be protected against victimisation", and so on. And recommendation 31. That is the one on which I should like the noble Viscount to explain his views. We will not necessarily table it as an amendment; it may not be suitable. But it would be suitable for the Government to give us some information about it. The recommendation says, The Offshore Installations (Safety Representatives and Safety Committees) Regulations 1989 which we know are subject to review should be modified to the effect that the training of safety representatives should be determined and paid for by the operator". The Government must have some influence over the review. It would perhaps be appropriate for the Government to suggest that recommendation 31 should also be accepted, and that the review—when it comes—should recommend that it be put into effect. That is for the future. For the present we ask the Government to accept the Bill.

9.6 p.m.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton

My Lords, I have the unusual task of being asked to sum up a somewhat one-sided debate. Certainly if the number of voices determine the matter then the Government must surely accept the Bill.

I believe that there are three major reasons why the Government should accept the Bill. The first, as my noble friend Lord McCarthy said, is that it is a suitable and proper vehicle to implement recommendation 30 of the Cullen Report. I shall not rehearse the arguments again on that matter which my friends have already dealt with, save to say that in the previous debate on the Government's own Bill they were left in the somewhat remarkable position of accepting the entire Cullen Report and choosing to put forward a Bill which did not implement an important part of those recommendations; that is, the safeguards for safety representatives against victimisation. The second reason why we believe the Government have so far got the position wrong is the direction of the European Community which will gradually govern these areas.

The third reason is our clear view, and I believe that of everyone working in the field—certainly that of the Health and Safety Commission—that there is an indissoluble link between regulations relating to safety at work and the involvement of workers and all employees who take part in the work of accident prevention. There is therefore a link to their protection against victimisation in their employment. It is almost impossible to read a document on this matter, including those of the Health and Safety Commission, which does not refer to that link which the Government broke in choosing to implement a Bill which so far is concerned only with safety regulation.

The next reason I pass through quickly. The framework directive of the European Community No. 89/391 demands that we take certain steps. I am aware that the Government are proceeding, through the commission, with drafts to put them into effect. Part of the requirement of that directive is that workers should have a clear right to remove themselves from a dangerous, hazardous, serious and imminent danger at their place of work and to do so without fear of disadvantage or victimisation. In numerous articles especially Article 8 of the directive, that is made clear. That has not been made clear so far on oil rigs. One might say that in my noble friend's Bill, which I heartily congratulate her on pursuing in the way that she has, there might be matters inserted in that respect in Committee if the Government's drafts for implementing the directive are not wholly satisfactory.

Finally, as I have suggested, not every Bill, even from these Benches, is perfect. When, as we hope, the matter comes to Committee—I shall discuss this with my noble friends—we would like to consider inserting, for example, something which we believe was in the mind of Lord Cullen but which he does not advert to expressly. I refer to the fact that victimisation takes its toll not only by dismissal but also in our employment law generally by action short of dismissal, a situation which should be protected in the Bill.

I now come to a more difficult point. This Bill is attached to the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. It is therefore attached to safety representatives who are appointed by recognised unions. That is a difficulty in our law and it is certainly a difficulty in implementing the directive. Recognition is voluntary and therefore there is a problem about employers who do not recognise unions. That has certainly arisen in the offshore industry. Therefore, we have put into the Bill—and here I congratulate my noble friend especially—Clause 1 (1) (b) which does not give rights only to the safety representative, who by the very terms of the Bill can only exist in law where the union is recognised, but also to the individual worker who is allowed in law to complain either to his employer or to the health and safety inspectors about what he believes genuinely to be —it may be that one wants to insert that he had reasonable grounds for that belief —a breach of the safety regulations.

We believe that that is a most important paragraph. It is a right for the individual worker where the employer refuses to recognise a union and where, therefore, in law the safety representative does not have status. Moreover, we believe it right that under Article 11 paragraph 1, of the European framework directive 1989 the worker has the right to make proposals—which plainly include complaints to the employer—and under paragraph 6 he is explicitly given the right to appeal, to the authority responsible for safety and health protection at work if they consider that the measures taken and the means employed by the employer are inadequate for the purposes of ensuring health and safety at work". Clause 1(1) (b) in the Bill purports to enact just that part of the directive. To remove it would be a very serious step indeed. We feel quite sure that the Government will not be minded to take any step of that kind. I believe that for once, late at night, there may be a consensus. I urge the Government to accept the Bill.

9.13 p.m

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater)

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has brought forward an important measure, the objective of which, as she will know, has considerable support from all sides. As noble Lords will know, it is designed to implement one of the recommendations of Lord Cullen following the Piper Alpha disaster in which he said that safety representatives should benefit from protection against victimisation for carrying out their functions.

The noble Baroness quoted the words of Lord Cullen, about the creation of a safety culture. She not only said that tonight but she gave a certain importance to that at the Second Reading of the Offshore Safety Bill. Of course that is implemented by way of the safety committee structure. Similarly, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, drew attention to the creation of the safety culture.

I believe that the Government have made it clear, as I have had cause to repeat more than once over the past few weeks, that we accept without reservation every recommendation of the Cullen Report. Regarding this particular recommendation, No. 30, we have also given explicit assurance that it is our intention to implement related but more far-reaching requirements contained in the European Community health and safety framework directive as soon as we have a suitable legislative vehicle. By extending these provisions offshore Lord Cullen's concerns will be fully met.

The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked me when that will be done. The Government are planning to include provisions in legislation to be brought forward in the next Parliament, although obviously I cannot anticipate the Queen's Speech. I can, however, anticipate the next Parliament, I believe. No suitable earlier vehicle existed. We debated the matter of victimisation thoroughly during the passage of the Offshore Safety Bill through this House. That Bill is not such a vehicle. As I then pointed out, although essential, it is a technical enabling measure which deals solely with health and safety issues. Provisions for employment protection, however desirable, are clearly beyond its scope. The noble Baroness and others have already attempted that route. There is no doubt that that Bill cannot be used for such a purpose.

However, the noble Baroness has now presented the House with a further option in the shape of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has indicated that that gives me an opportunity to stand by what I said at the Second Reading of the Offshore Safety Bill. I listened very carefully to the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness in the course of our discussions on that Bill. I have to say that there is very little between us in what we are looking to achieve. I have also had the benefit of what was said in Monday's debate in another place on the Second Reading of the Government's Bill. Once again, protection of safety representatives against victimisation was, very properly, a matter of great concern. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment said then that he would take into account the points made that afternoon before determining the Government's final attitude to the Bill of the noble Baroness.

He went on to suggest that her Bill might prove a more promising vehicle for Recommendation 30 than the Offshore Safety Bill. After hearing the noble Baroness introduce her Bill this evening, I can only agree. The Bill now before us deals directly, or aims to, with Lord Cullen's Recommendation 30. The Government categorically accept that recommendation. We intend to implement it. I think that noble Lords opposite want us to implement it and here may be an early opportunity to do so.

The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, in the course of his remarks wondered why a measure of this sort was not implemented in 1977. But he never gave us an answer to that. He also asked whether the training of safety representatives, which is dealt with in Recommendation 31, would be paid for by the operatives. I think he is aware that a review of the safety representatives is under way. I can do no better than quote the words of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State: a review of the regulations is under way. As soon as the review is complete, the Government will implement this recommendation together with any other necessary changes." —[Official Report, Commons, 10/2/92; col. 681.] I think that answers the question of the noble Lord.

In its present form, however, the Bill before us does not fully achieve the result Lord Cullen proposed. The noble Baroness indicated just now that she would welcome amendments where the intention of the recommendation had not been fulfilled. We shall therefore seek to bring forward for consideration in Committee amendments which ensure that the Bill fully implements Lord Cullen's recommendation.

I have listened again very carefully to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn. I shall consider carefully what he had to say on Clause 1(1) (b). I hope that the wish on all sides to ensure the health and safety of those working offshore, and the co-operation we have experienced on the Offshore Safety Bill, will be continued in our joint aim to find an appropriate way to implement Recommendation 30.

Baroness Turner of Camden

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his statement. I am very glad indeed to learn that the Government accept in full Recommendation 30 and will seek to introduce in Committee a series of amendments designed to give full effect to it. My colleagues and I look forward to seeing the text of those amendments and to speaking to them at the Committee and Report stages.

As I indicated, we are very happy to welcome amendments that will strengthen the Bill. On both sides of the House we know what we are after. We seek to ensure complete compliance with the recommendations of Lord Cullen. I welcome in particular the noble Viscount's response to my noble friend Lord McCarthy in regard to Recommendation 31. I am sure that on this side of the House we shall watch with interest to see what emerges from the review in regard to training, which we also view as a matter of considerable importance.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.