Workers rights continue to get slashed by the Tory Reapers

Workers rights are a small part of the much wider Human Rights (Article 23 of the U.D.) but are being literally torn up by the government.

Just recently (and without public consultation) the government amended the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill (ERRB) at the last minute, at Report Stage, in the House of Commons which has resulted in the removal of basic rights for injured workers. The new clause, (61 of the ERRB) will mean that if injured due to a breach of an employers statutory duty within the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA), they will be unable to enforce that breach in a court of law.

At present if an employer fails to operate within the regulations of the HSWA and an individual is injured as a result of negligence and/or breach of statutory duty, a claim can be brought against the employer. If the new proposed clause were to remain it would mean that an employer would no longer be liable in the civil courts for the criminal offence of a breach of the HSWA.

This will mean an employee will now have to prove in court that the employer was negligent rather than rely on the breach of the regulations themselves.

Meanwhile the Labour Party have challenged the amendment but after the vote on October 17th in the House of Commons, the challenge failed and so the bill, as amended, now sits with the other out of touch bunch at the House of Lords.

The government are justifying their lack of public consultation or impact assessment on a recent review of health and safety by Professor Ragnar Löfstedt. Professor Löfstedt recommended the abolishment of the strict liability provisions within the HSWA (where they do not have a defence of reasonable practicability) or that civil liability should be removed. Our government seems to be having it's cake and eating it by trying to do both.

The amendment is in regard to Section 47 of the HSWA which contains the assumption that regulations made under all aspects of health and safety regulations, carry civil liability for any breaches, unless otherwise expressly excluded. The government's amendment will effectively reverse that assumption and mean that no H&S regulation, under the HSWA or other, would impose civil liability, unless express provision was made for them to do so.

With the regulations not having any express provision and no proposal to amend them there will be no civil enforcement allowing the government to then create general defences that could apply to all H&S regulations and not have to insert that defence into every set. Clever.

This therefore has the potential to provide the power to impose a general defence of 'reasonable practicality'.

BIS minister Matthew Hancock said in the debate:

“We are ensuring…that there is a test of reasonableness for the actions of employers, so that those who have taken all reasonable precautions cannot be prosecuted for a technical breach.

“The definition of reasonableness will come from the common-law interpretation, and the concept is already well regarded and specified in law.”

The new section 47 will not have this affect, it will however allow the government to make changes such as this through further regulations.

What we are seeing now is another example of the government driving a train through the a century of legislation fought for by the people before us. 

The case of Groves v Lord Wimborne, 1898 and Strict liability was found when the Court ruled that "the defence of common employment is not applicable in a case where injury has been caused to a servant by the breach of an absolute duty imposed by statute upon his master for his protection."

Now without civil liability any injured person will have to prove that there has been a breach of regulations.

The future is uncertain for us all, we face the only enforcement being through that of the underfunded and understated Health and Safety Executive. 

The Tories and other right wing agenda setters such as The Daily Mail like to talk of how Labour are hostage to the 'Union Barons', yet it is the Tory led coalition government that is two-stepping along with the insurance industry, who coincidentally are a huge donor to the Conservative Party. Whilst Labour are not innocent in all this, the hypocrisy of the Tory statements regarding funding are not lost on us. 

The banking scandals that seem to keep erupting and being ignored by the larger public and the government in general are made more interesting with the revelation that the Conservative Party has tenuous links to the City's banks, which might go some way to explaining why it is us in the working class, and not them, that are paying for this financial crises. 

So much for being in this together.

The Conservative government so far have;

• Forced through the Jackson reforms;
• Removed most legal aid;
• it is seeking to reduce the amount an injury victim can recover in costs to win a case even if the court rules those costs were necessary to win.
• They want to stop injured people with cases under £5,000 in value getting the cost of the lawyer representing them; and
• They are seeking to put all cases under £25,000 in value through an automated system that isn’t even working for road accident cases.

All these latest reforms will serve to do are penalise the vulnerable people in our society, making it harder to access justice for injuries caused through no fault of their own.

These revelations come against the backdrop of workers facing dismissal through capability without the safe guards in place to protect them from uncaring and impatient employers and the increase in pension age.

These are some dark times, maybe the view of dark satanic mills portrayed in Danny Boyle's Olympic opening ceremony are not so far off the mark after all.