HL Deb 20 April 1994 vol 554 cc189-91

2.50 p.m.

Lord Ashley of Stoke

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they propose to remove Crown immunity from prosecutions under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and regulations made under that Act.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley)

My Lords, the Government have no immediate plans to change the current position, which is that Crown bodies are required to comply with health and safety legislation and HSE inspectors seek to ensure that the law is complied with and that Crown employers meet standards of good practice found elsewhere. The HSE is considering the implications of removing Crown immunity from prosecution under health and safety legislation.

Lord Ashley of Stoke

My Lords, I appreciate that Answer, but is the Minister aware that there is plenty of evidence that some Crown bodies do not comply with the health and safety regulations until Crown immunity is removed from them; for example, the notorious Stanley Royd Hospital and others? Instead of workers being protected by health and safety regulations, management flouts the regulations and is protected by Crown immunity. That should be abolished by the Government.

Lord Henley

My Lords, it is our policy that Crown immunity should not lead to standards of health and safety in Crown premises lower than those applying elsewhere. Health and safety legislation already bites fully on the Crown and allows for inspection and enforcement through Crown notices. As I said, the HSE is currently examining the case for removing Crown immunity and the costs and benefits associated with such a removal, but I have to say that it is not one of its highest priorities.

Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone

My Lords, I ask this question merely because I want the information, which I ought to know. How far does Crown immunity apply in the public service? Does it apply, for instance, to quangos and all health service institutions? How far down the ladder of service does it apply? Does it apply, for instance, to an employee of the Crown, however lowly, who flouts the health and safety regulations?

Lord Henley

My Lords, I am not sure that I can answer my noble and learned friend with the precision that he would like. However, I can say that quangos, health authorities and next step agencies such as the Benefits Agency of the DSS are also covered by Crown immunity. The important point to get over, as I made clear in my first supplementary answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, is that it is our policy that Crown immunity should not lead to lower standards of health and safety. There are provisions for Crown improvement notices and prohibition notices. There is also a provision for formally censoring Crown employers at a fairly senior level for non-compliance.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, in view of the Minister' s recent remarks on this Question, will Her Majesty 's Government re-examine the reports of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons with a view to implementing his health and safety regulations?

Lord Henley

My Lords, prisons are another matter, but I shall have a look at the question asked by the noble Lord, and I shall write to him or arrange for an appropriate colleague to write to him.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, with regard to my noble and learned friend's question about quangos, is my noble friend aware that when, some 20 years ago, I was director of an industrial training board, which was unquestionably a quango, we did not have the protection of Crown immunity? I suspect that on the whole quangos do not have it.

Lord Henley

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his assistance in this matter. I shall look to the precise line where Crown immunity is drawn. It might be helpful if I wrote to my noble friend or my noble and learned friend and placed a copy of the letter in the Library.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us would take him to task for saying that the Government's policy does not lead to a lowering of standards? My noble friend Lord Ashley did well to refer to the Stanley Royd Hospital in West Yorkshire, where a number of elderly people died of food poisoning in the most appalling circumstances. That was related very much to the fact that immunity was enjoyed by that hospital. Some time ago at the Dispatch Box the Minister said that the protection of employees of the Palace of Westminster under the health and safety legislation, which is what the Question is about, was under serious—

Noble Lords

No.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, some time ago the Minister was questioned about employees in the Palace of Westminster. He gave an undertaking that the matter was under serious consideration. Is he now saying that the consideration is not so serious, because surely the people who work in the Palace are entitled to just as much protection as is afforded to people who work outside it? It is about time the Government met their requests.

Lord Henley

My Lords, the Question is not about health and safety in the Palace, which is another matter, because it is not covered by Crown immunity but by the application of parliamentary privilege. As the noble Lord will remember, there was a Question about that some time ago, and another one two years earlier. When answering for the Government, my noble friend Lord Ullswater gave a commitment that that immunity resulting from parliamentary privilege would be removed at the first suitable legislative opportunity.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, the point I am making is that the Minister referred two years ago to the first suitable opportunity. It is not the earliest opportunity if we have to wait that long is it?

Lord Henley

My Lords, there has not been an opportunity since then.

Lord Ashley of Stoke

My Lords, would not a more accurate answer to the perceptive question asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, be that many tens of thousands of workers are covered by Crown immunity and are therefore not protected fully by the health and safety regulations? If that is not a high priority for the Government, why is it that the Home Office Review Body has recommended lifting Crown immunity from fire precautions legislation?

Lord Henley

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord did not listen to my first Answer. I was trying to make it clear that health and safety legislation bites fully on the Crown. It also allows for Crown inspection and enforcement procedures. There are also procedures, as I made clear, for formally censoring Crown employers at a fairly senior level. In other words, we have more or less everything except for prosecution. I then went on to say that the HSE is examining the costs and benefits of removing that immunity. There is little point in removing that immunity if it does not improve the position and merely imposes greater costs.

Lord Ashley of Stoke

My Lords, I am sorry to come back again, but I did listen to the first Answer. I found it unsatisfactory, because the Minister is neglecting and ignoring clear evidence of the bad effects of Crown immunity.

Lord Henley

My Lords, as I said, that is something we are examining. One has to be clear that the benefits of removing Crown immunity are greater than the costs of retaining it. The important point is to have the best possible health and safety systems and practice. I am satisfied that this country has a pretty good health and safety record, but obviously, if the removal of Crown immunity could improve it without imposing greater costs, then that is the line that we would go down.