As the hon. Gentleman said, he has not had time to read the Bill, which is why I itemised, for the record, every clause and schedule that removes Tory legislation. In fact, around 80% of the legislation being removed is Tory legislation. Indeed, when the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), responds, he will doubtless wish to outline which bits he introduced in his various ministerial guises. Given his ministerial longevity, there will undoubtedly be several regulations that he was personally responsible for but now wishes to remove, and we on the Opposition Benches might wish to back him on that.
However, the Minister for Government Policy, a highly educated and learned gentleman, did not, when receiving his challenge on self-employment and safety, know what he was talking about. I cited, in relation to clause 1, what would happen with a self-employed mountain guide. He immediately jumped in to assist his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), who was struggling, because he knew that I was right and that the clause represents an undoing of the self-employed mountain guide’s employment position. There is a critical flaw in the logic of the Bill. Mountain guides require insurance, and to get it they need to demonstrate that there is a health and safety profile, and that is relevant for those who employ self-employed mountain guides who take people out on ropes. By the way, I personally managed to negotiate, on behalf of the all-party group on mountaineering, exemption from the working at heights directive anomalies that affected that profession, demonstrating that the way the industry works meant it was not safe to put that application into place. I am not, therefore, on the side of unnecessary regulation, but the protection of the employment position of those self-employed people is fundamental.
A better-known example, the single biggest civil litigation case brought by a group of workers against a Government, demonstrates the issue more brutally. That common-law action brought by workers in the mining industry, for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and Vibration White Finger, cost the Government a huge amount of money, because the people involved were employed primarily by the Government, so it was a taxpayer liability, although there were some private companies. The civil action was successful because the litigators had demonstrated that appropriate practices and procedures were not in place. If there had been proper regulation of the mining industry at the time, the cost to the health of the men forced to bring the case would have been hugely reduced, as would the financial cost to the taxpayer and other employers, which went into many billions.
That is the point of good regulation. A good health and safety procedure—for example on use of breathing equipment in a colliery or the handling of vibrating tools—would have been a mitigating factor in those processes, and a huge mitigating factor in terms of compensation. That is precisely why self-employed mountain guides require a structure within which they
can get insurance and quantify it, to take them out of the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. What we are doing is leading to a lawyers’ paradise in which the agency that might employ people, and the individual, will be able to battle between one another over who is liable, if it can be demonstrated in court that particular procedures were not followed. A requirement of responsibility under health and safety law gives protection to that self-employed person as well as to the agency employing them.
Let me tell the House why I know that. When I ran a small business—as I did for many years—we had to deal with working at heights and a range of legislation, and I shall illustrate my point with some examples. A case was brought against us by an employee who had broken his foot. However, because of manual handling at work legislation and the fact that we had applied it, the case got nowhere. That was precisely because the legislation had created a structure with a sensible and rational procedure, which we could demonstrate and insist that the employee followed. When he did not follow that procedure, we could demonstrate that as the employer—with liability—we were not in fact liable for the accident.
It is a myth that good regulation damages small business. I lived with regulation day in, day out, and if we ask small businesses, we find that they nearly always object to two things: paperwork—that is always a nightmare—and cost. When small businesses complain—and when I did—it is about cost. If regulation costs a lot and someone is trying to make ends meet, it is difficult. However, regulations on manual handling at work, and health and safety legislation, do not involve cost other than training the work force. It is a miniscule cost. It is an absurdity when someone is handling heavy goods, as we were, not to have such regulation. Let me give a second example.