Health and Safety: Common Sense Common Safety

My Lords, Members of the House may be aware that I chair a task force looking into the red-tape burdens on small charities and voluntary groups. In our work, we come across some of the themes to which my noble friend has referred in his report. Therefore, I congratulate him on at least three grounds: first, for having pulled the threads together of a highly complicated matter in a commendably brief and to-the-point report; secondly, for not just stating the problem, which is the easy bit, but for coming forward with some practical suggestions for solutions and ways forward; and, thirdly, for not showing slavish opposition to regulation because regulation has a place, but equally for dealing with the question of myth busting. Problems can lie not just with the regulator but with the regulatee and the enforcement agencies. However, there is a problem, and my noble friend is right to have highlighted it. Last Friday, on a visit to one of the schools in the Lord Speaker’s outreach programme, I mentioned my role and was told, ““We’ve just had all our mechanical pencil sharpeners removed because portable appliances have to be tested every year, ours haven’t been tested, and therefore they’ve had to be taken out of service””. There is a problem. In the research we are doing for my report, one of the basic questions we are asking ourselves is: what stops a person volunteering or becoming a trustee? There is no simple answer to that. Some people say time, some say family pressures, some say business pressures, but behind them all lies the frequently expressed concern about being sued or becoming involved in litigation. Some will argue that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear and the law will support you in due course, but the fact of the matter is that for the non-lawyer, the time lapse between the offence and coming to court, the potential costs, the psychological pressure—your wife saying, ““Darling, is our house at risk?””—and the uncertainty about the outcome remain, rightly or wrongly, major disincentives. This argument also fails to take into account the inequality of arms that appears to have grown up between prosecution and defence in recent years. While I entirely accept that we must ensure appropriate access to justice for our fellow citizens, the present risk-free approach has played a major role in the growth of what my noble friend and others have described as the compensation culture. For me, the combined effect of conditional fee arrangements, claims management companies and after-the-event insurance appears almost entirely malign. I hope that the Government will follow up the recommendation in my noble friend’s report, at least in this aspect. The elephant in room, to which some noble Lords have already referred, is a major issue in the background of our deliberations. It is risk. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that zero risk is not only unattainable but, if it were attainable, it would be undesirable. If our society is to have any dynamism or creativity, an element of risk is essential. I do not think I am alone in that view; many commentators support it. We need to have a mature public debate about the level of risk that our society is prepared to accept. We need to have this debate away from the appalling emotional pressure of specific events. As a parent, one can only sympathise with other parents faced with the dreadful injury or death of a child. The regret, sadness and anger lead to media campaigns—and sometimes, I regret to say, to some opposition activity—which place great pressure on the politicians of the day to do something. We need to think about the aspects of the risk equation. There is the knee-jerk regulation, the stable door and the bolted horse but, more importantly, there is the referred risk. Noble Lords will be familiar with the idea of referred pain, where you pull your back in one place but the pain shows itself in another place. Risks are transferred. Noble Lords will recall that there was a bad crash at Hatfield in Hertfordshire in October 2000. A train travelling north at 125 miles an hour came off the rails and four people were killed and 70 were injured. Railtrack found that the crash was the result of the fragmentation of the track as the train passed over it, so speed limits of about 20 miles an hour were imposed. Trains were delayed and cancelled and, as a result, people ceased to travel by train and travelled by road instead. Road travel is much more dangerous than rail travel, and actuaries will tell you that as a result of that in the 30 days after the Hatfield crash five more people died on the roads than would have done in normal circumstances, so we need to think about what shutting off one particular risk may cause in another area. Another aspect of this is the impact on the social fabric of our society, on the giver as well as the receiver of a service—a social service perhaps. Not only is the receiver of the service deprived of something that he or she would like, but the giver, seeking to put something back into society and to do something for their fellow citizen, is equally deprived. We need to find a way to distinguish between systemic risks leading to a need for regulation and for what, in that rather unfortunate but nevertheless accurate phrase of Donald Rumsfeld, can be described as ““stuff happens””. Finally, we need to consider the impact of regulation and the regulatory burden on the destruction and undermining of people’s confidence in their own judgment. Someone might say to you, ““It has been covered by the Health and Safety Executive; it has been covered by the Criminal Records Bureau””, as if this absolves them of further responsibility. The fact is that it does not change the risk; it has merely altered the responsibility for it. If my noble friend’s report begins to redress that balance and to restore self confidence, it will not have been a report in vain.