It might be more helpful if the hon. Gentleman allowed me to run through my questions first.
Clause 1(3) uses the word ““unreasonably”” in relation to decisions to ban on the grounds of health and safety. It also appears in the Bill's long title. The question of what is reasonable and what is unreasonable is a tricky one, although I think we all recognise that, over time, some silly decisions have been taken. The hon. Gentleman cited some of them. Anyone whose event is banned for any reason will feel that the decision was unreasonable, and I fear that burdens would be imposed on local authorities if every decision were challenged.
Clause 2(3) requires a review to be completed"““within two weeks of the request being received””."
Again, I am concerned about the possibly unnecessary extra burdens that that might impose on local authorities. A good event organiser would tend to seek permission for an event a long time before organising it. In my locality, such events as triathlons and marathons are often organised a year in advance.
We hear many stories about decisions that are taken for health and safety reasons, but I think it important for us not to denigrate health and safety entirely. At the time of the Young report on health and safety, a TUC health and safety officer, Hugh Robertson, said:"““For sure, silly things are sometimes done in the name of health and safety and the behaviour of some claims firms can be reprehensible. But the real health and safety scandal in the UK is the 20,000 people who die each year due to injury or diseases linked to their work. A serious review of health and safety would put far more emphasis on dealing with this avoidable death and suffering.””"
I think it important for us to bear that in mind.
We have heard about firework displays being abandoned and pancake-tossing races being restricted, but let me make a serious point. On Sunday morning I was at a schools rugby tournament watching my nephew playing for Glasgow Academicals. He and his team played very well, but one of the boys suffered a broken leg in the game. That schools tournament was being held at a ground with proper facilities, and an ambulance safely transported the injured young player. He was able to rejoin his team with his leg in plaster, and be a hero on the way home. We must bear in mind, however, that there can be terrible injuries in rugby matches. This match was being played by 11-year-olds, and they were engaging in contested scrums. If a young person were to suffer a serious neck injury, for example, we would not want them to be a long way from medical help with no suitable transport or paramedics to deal with it. In some sporting events, such as fast contact sports or those involving water, there can be terrible injuries, and there must be a sensible consideration of health and safety to ensure that any such injuries are dealt with properly.
I ask the Minister and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) to address the concerns I have raised and the points I made about localism and centralism.
Local Government Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Keeley
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Friday, 18 March 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Local Government Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
525 c659 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 15:20:41 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_728455
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_728455
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_728455