We often, as a firm, voice our collective opinion on government proposals. In recent years, we have spoken out on a number of issues, ranging from the implementation of a cap on trainee solicitors’ wages, to the Jackson Reforms in the field of Personal Injury law and the now imminent introduction of fees in the Employment Tribunals.
We therefore speak from years of experience when we say that clear and considered responses to consultations require a great deal of research and preparation, which can often take several months.
We were therefore alarmed to hear in recent weeks that the government has now introduced new guidance to shorten the twelve week period for which ministers were previously required to consult the public on government proposals to a mere two weeks.
This clearly will make it extremely difficult for interested parties to gather evidence and prepare a reasoned and informed response to policy changes that directly affect us all.
The upshot of this is that, potentially, sections of the public, in particular those with access to fewer resources who will no doubt struggle to meet the two week deadline, will essentially be left without a voice to challenge government policy.
This appears to us to be nothing more than an attempt by the government to suppress opposition.
To place the effect of reducing the consultation period into context, in their response to the reduction of consultation periods the Institute of Employment Rights cite the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill as an example whereby the government introduced, in their words, a “technical amendment” to existing legislation, without consulting the public. This “technical amendment” was to section 47 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the significance of which is far-reaching as it overturns the law imposing employers’ strict liability for the health and safety of their employees, which has been in effect for 114 years.
The implications of this are that various existing personal injury clients of our firm who suffer from life-long, incapacitating injuries, including one client who lost an eye, and potentially a career, due to faulty work equipment, would in future have been prevented from bringing their claims against their employer.
We therefore share the view of the Institute of Employment Rights and have supported their ongoing petition to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to voice our opposition to the government’s blatant attempt to stifle the voice of opposition.
Christopher Ridley - Solicitor
For further information on Employment Rights, please visit our website or call 0113 245 0733 and ask to speak with our Employment Rights team.
