Search Results

Recently there was a fatality on the East Coast Main Line due to a person being struck by a train. What followed on social media was disappointingly familiar, and while not stooping to Jeremy Clarkson’s level – who stated that we should leave the bodies on the track for scavenging animals – gave little, if any, thought to the family and friends of the person or indeed the driver. Of course being delayed on your journey home after a hard day at work is extremely annoying, however you will eventually get home without your life being significantly altered. This is not the case for the driver of the train. Aside from the shocking trauma of the event itself, and often the nagging feeling of guilt that you could have done something to avoid it (totally unfounded), recurring nightmares replaying the event are very common. Some drivers experience Post Traumatic Stress Disorder due to the incident, and in some cases it can mean traumatic events from many years ago resurfacing and having to be dealt with all over again. Mood changes and depression are common and this can have a knock on effect on relationships at a time when emotional support is needed most. When and if drivers do return to work (some are not able to) they will have to drive past the same spot again and again with memories of the incident flooding back. I’ve heard of drivers shaking uncontrollably as they go past the site of the incident in preparation for resuming driver duties. The emergency services and rail staff who deal with the aftermath are also affected. Having been present at the aftermath of a suicide on London Underground I can’t praise the emergency services enough in how they deal with such difficult situations. Finally, the family and friends of the victim will be deeply affected for the rest of their lives. Please give the above a thought next time you are delayed by a fatality on the railway. Samaritans are available to talk to at: 116 123 or email at: jo@samaritans.org

This week the Supreme Court ruled that Employment Tribunal fees, which could amount to £1,200 must be abolished as they meant that the law could not be accessed equally by all. In wonderful understatement and the minimum of legalese the Judges totally demolished the Lord Chancellor’s argument to impose the fees and gave a salutary lesson in legal history – dating back to the Magna Carta. The irony is striking as Chris Grayling studied history at Oxford University – not law obviously! A huge victory for employees Excerpts from the ruling below:- 68. At the heart of the concept of the rule of law is the idea that society is governed by law. Parliament exists primarily in order to make laws for society in this country. Democratic procedures exist primarily in order to ensure that the Parliament which makes those laws includes Members of Parliament who are chosen by the people of this country and are accountable to them. Courts exist in order to ensure that the laws made by Parliament, and the common law created by the courts themselves, are applied and enforced. That role includes ensuring that the executive branch of government carries out its functions in accordance with the law. In order for the courts to perform that role, people must in principle have unimpeded access to them. Without such access, laws are liable to become a dead letter, the work done by Parliament may be rendered nugatory, and the democratic election of Members of Parliament may become a meaningless charade. That is why the courts do not merely provide a public service like any other. 72. When Parliament passes laws creating employment rights, for example, it does so not merely in order to confer benefits on individual employees, but because it has decided that it is in the public interest that those rights should be given effect. It does not envisage that every case of a breach of those rights will result in a claim before an ET. But the possibility of claims being brought by employees whose rights are infringed must exist, if employment relationships are to be based on respect for those rights. Equally, although it is often desirable that claims arising out of alleged breaches of employment rights should be resolved by negotiation or mediation, those procedures can only work fairly and properly if they are backed up by the knowledge on both sides that a fair and just system of adjudication will be available if they fail. Otherwise, the party in the stronger bargaining position will always prevail. It is thus the claims which are brought before an ET which enable legislation to have the deterrent and other effects which Parliament intended, provide authoritative guidance as to its meaning and application, and underpin alternative methods of dispute resolution.

Images of the Grenfell Tower fire will be etched in our memories for many years, much like the tragic events that took place at Hillsborough. There is no doubt that this tragedy was avoidable and not an accident in the true sense of the word ‘an unforeseen circumstance, that happens without apparent cause.’ This tragedy was foreseen, it’s just that the people and organisations who foresaw it were ignored. Last Wednesday evening I attended a seminar held at the Queen Mary University entitled ‘Grenfell Tower – An Avoidable Tragedy’. The speakers included Criminologists and experts in Human Rights as well as the General Secretary of the Fire Brigade Union and a QC representing the families. The seminar opened with a statement from the Justice for Grenfell Group which stated that the tragedy was “emblematic of the deep inequality in Britain”. Hillsborough was mentioned throughout the seminar, often as a warning about how governments approach disasters such as Hillsborough, shifting blame onto the fans in that case. It was also used as an example of how decisions made in the aftermath of a disaster can have consequences many years into the future. Those that criticise the Human Rights Act would do well to remember that the Article Two of the Act, “the right to life” was instrumental in overturning the discredited Hillsborough inquest verdicts of 1991 and led to new inquests in 2016 which found that the 96 victims were unlawfully killed. The General Secretary of the FBU said it was a miracle that no firefighters were killed at Grenfell Tower and gave a detailed timeline of detrimental changes to the administration of fire services in the UK dating back as far as 2004. These changes include the privatisation of building control and fire risk assessment as well as the reduction in fire fighting personnel. A culture has developed, accelerated by the years of austerity, where Health & Safety regulation is seen as ‘a burden to business’ and this is demonstrated by the current Government’s ‘red tape challenge’ which prides itself on removing what is believed to be unnecessary legislation. When we hear Sajid Javid, the current Minister for Communities and Local Government say that no stone will be left unturned in the investigation we should remember that it was his own department, then run by Eric Pickles that in 2013 repealed regulation 20 of the London Building Act which dealt with fire safeguards in buildings over 30 metres. This Act which had its roots as far back as Great Fire of London in 1667 has been chipped away centuries later for profit, hidden under the cloak of cost benefit analysis. See the link below for the Final Impact assessment document produced by the Communities and Local Government department in 2013. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_IgSHhjTJLeWW9aanJhT0lvaTZ2ZlB6V2lFRnYtdGZWSDdB/view?usp=sharing A further avoidable tragedy was how the residents of Grenfell Tower were treated after the fire in what appeared to be a total collapse in the ability of local government to deal with the crisis in front of them which left a vacuum which was hastily filled by volunteers, charities and the local community. This failure to provide a basic duty of care to the people of Grenfell Tower is a stark example of austerity in action. I have serious concerns about how this disaster will be investigated. The first words of the Judge appointed to lead the Public Enquiry don’t inspire confidence, stating that the families are likely to be disappointed, and that the enquiry will only deal with the causes of the fire itself and not the wider aspects.

While running as the Labour candidate for NE Bedfordshire in the June 2017 General Election, I was surprised (although of course I should not have been) at the enormous variety of questions asked during the campaign. These ranged from Brexit – I voted remain, to fox hunting – I’m against repealing the ban, to assisted dying – I am leaning to being in favour, in a limited number of circumstances, providing there are strict controls in place. These questions would be asked face to face, via email or social media. I tried to be as honest as possible when giving an answer, and in the limited time available I would research where necessary and give as informed a view as possible. If I didn’t have a fully formed view I would indicate this and, as was the case with one question during a Hustings (a question on modern slavery) if I knew nothing about the subject I held my hand up and said so. So one reason for writing this blog is to have a written record, in one place, of my views on a variety of issues which can be elaborated in greater detail than in the limited characters available on Twitter, or the sometimes shouty atmosphere of Facebook. All the views expressed in this blog are personal – I hope you enjoy them!