Deregulation (Hansard, 7 December 1993)

§ Mr. Michael Forsyth

I have seen and read the report, and have written to Mr. Edmonds, General Secretary of the General, Municipal and Boilermakers Union—GMB—in the following termsYour letter of 18 November to the Secretary of State enclosed a copy of your document "Freedom to Kill? The Case Against Deregulation". I understand that your colleague Mr. Nigel Bryson has already received comments on your document from Frank Davies, Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) and Mr. John Rimington, Director-General of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). As you know, the review arises from an invitation from me to the HSC earlier this year, asking them to look at health and safety regulation with the aim of reducing any undue burdens which it may impose on business, especially small firms. As you said in your letter, the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act has provided a sensible framework for improvements to safety in the workplace. HSC accepted my invitation in the context of its mandate under section 1 of the Act to remove outdated, unnecessary and technologically redundant legislation from the statute book. The review builds upon and continues that work. I was therefore astounded to read your report's confused account of the HSC Review of Regulations. I find it surprising that the GMB should wish to mislead the public on such important work, the aim of which is to develop an even more effective health and safety legislative framework. More surprisingly still, the report makes a barely concealed attack upon the integrity of the HSC, an independent tripartite body. 206W I should not need to remind you that the seven Sector Task Groups, which are helping the HSC take the work of the review forward, have trade union members (including one from the GMB); and the Steering Group for the Review, under the Chairmanship of Miss Jenny Bacon, one of the HSE's Deputy Directors General, contains representatives from the TUC. It says little for your confidence in your colleagues if you endorse the conclusions of the report that there is a "hidden agenda" or "predetermined outcome. There is certainly no intention of increasing "freedom for employers to go back to 19th century working conditions" now, or at any time in the future. Two Press Notices were issued recently, in response to garbled Press accounts of what was supposedly in the Deregulation Bill, which made this perfectly clear. Indeed I believe that if people find it easier to understand their legal obligations as a result of the review of regulations currently being undertaken by HSC, they will be better able to comply —and that has to result in better health and safety standards for workers. Some employers have argued that section 1 (2) of the 1974 Act inhibits sensible legislative change. The HSC review is looking at this, and the Government will decide what if anything to do in the light of this and any other evidence. In the meantime, I await the advice of the HSC. HSC has already emphasised that the review needs to look not only at the substance of individual regulations but at the broader aspects of the regulatory regime. This includes: how to reduce the burden of paperwork imposed on business by health and safety regulations; the enforcement practices of HSE and local authority inspectors; and the further consolidation of all health and safety legislation to produce a simpler legislative framework designed to maintain or improve the standards of health and safety. Any proposals for legislative change arising from the review will themselves be subject to the usual consultation procedures. Good standards of health and safety save business money in terms of less lost production due to accidents and so on. They also prevent illness, death and injury which costs individuals and the community dear. In simplifying and clarifying the requirements of the law, a system of regulation will be created which is easier for everyone to understand and easier for employers in particular to comply with. I am disappointed that the GMB does not appear to be able to agree with that aim.