Government plans to make it harder for employees to sue the companies they work for if they are injured at work was narrowly voted down by the House of Lords on 6 March.

The clause (Clause 62) that the Lords have rejected is part of the Enterprise & Regulatory Reform Bill. It puts the onus on proof of negligence on the claimant (the employee) rather than the company having to prove it was not negligent.

Ministers in favour of the proposal argue that they want to restore a ‘common sense approach to health & safety’. But on 6 March peers voted by 225 to 223 to remove the clause from the Bill.

It might, of course, be reinstated when the Bill returns to the House of Commons.

During the House of Lords debate, Labour frontbench spokesperson and former health & safety minister Lord McKenzie of Luton said the changes would in some cases make it impossible for employees injured at work to claim compensation.

He said the government sought to paint a “perception of a compensation culture” with the use of anecdotal evidence. He refuted the idea that the threat of being sued put firms off employing people, adding that “anecdotal perceptions are no basis on which to change fundamental rights that have been settled for more than a century”.

The Bill will now go back to the House of Commons for further consideration.