This is a story of a farmer from my constituency, his troubled relationship with a public agency and the lessons that I hope can be learned from his experience.

Rupert Burr farms 400 acres in Sevenhampton in Wiltshire and like many farmers he has found it difficult to make a living from agriculture alone. However, he has diligently, vigorously and imaginatively sought new sources of income. He was a pioneer of alternative sources of energy and grew biomass to supply power to local housing developments. He also made his farm into a popular local visitor attraction. Sadly, his enthusiasm and entrepreneurial vigour did not always have the support it should have had. His biomass supply was shackled by bureaucratic inertia in local and national Government and the visitor attraction was hit hard by the foot and mouth outbreak, which lost him a lot of business, but attracted no compensation. Nevertheless, Mr. Burr persisted indomitably in his endeavours, as do so many small business men, and has battled on to make a living.

Mr. Burr then attracted the attention of the Health and Safety Executive, which felt that his visitor attraction posed safety risks. Since 2003, the HSE has raised a number of concerns about matters such as the stability of a diesel tank, and restraints on a trailer. All safety issues are important and the Health and Safety Executive’s task of ensuring the safety of the public is vital. However, these matters were clearly not complex and they should not have been difficult to resolve.

I became involved when the HSE started to question the safety of a small maze that was constructed out of straw bales and located in a barn. Although the HSE felt that it was trying to protect the public and do its duty, Mr. Burr felt that it was overzealous and vindictive in trying to force him to make what he saw as unnecessary changes and placing unnecessary burdens on his business. A protracted and increasingly bitter dispute between the two sides began and became tangled up by allegations and counter-allegations. The HSE engaged very expensive lawyers and the matter ended up in front of a tribunal, which asked the parties to go away and find a way to resolve the dispute.

I will not take up hon. Members’ time by rehearsing all the twists and turns of this emotional drama, but I will highlight the salient points. Before doing so, I shall attach two important riders to what I will say. First, Rupert Burr would be the first to acknowledge that he could, at times, have reacted more temperately to the demands being made of him and to the way that he felt the HSE was not listening to his side of the case. However, that does not make him ineligible for the basic respect and consideration that I believe all institutions of the state should extend towards all citizens.

Secondly, despite my concerns about the HSE, which I will set out shortly, I pay tribute to its deputy chief executive, Justin McCracken, with whom I have conducted a lengthy correspondence and had many conversations while trying to resolve this case. Throughout the lengthy process, which I am sure at times has been extremely irksome to him and his officials, he has been exemplarily prompt in responding to my questions, correspondence and phone calls. He has also been consistently helpful and courteous in trying very constructively to find a way to resolve the dispute. Any criticism I make of the HSE must be tempered by the recognition that it has such a deputy chief executive.

The dispute has largely been resolved. Changes have been made to the maze, which have been accepted by the HSE, and Mr. Burr is making a contribution of £15,000 to the costs. The reason I have asked for this debate is not to resolve the issue, but because I have been struck by the extent to which the HSE seems, probably often unwittingly, to be driven by a culture that is unsupportive of small businesses and can be unnecessarily and destructively confrontational.

There was always a solution to the dispute available had the HSE taken a less dogmatic and more empathetic approach to Mr. Burr at the outset. Only when I became involved in trying to broker a solution, did the HSE begin to adopt a more flexible approach, which led eventually to a resolution. For example, it was originally insisted that the maze be on a single level instead of multi-tiered. Modifications have now been accepted that allow it to remain multi-tiered. That was very important to Mr. Burr, who felt a single tiered maze would not be of any interest to his visitors. Agreement has also been reached on other issues that, when I first became involved, seemed to be non-negotiable, such as interconnecting steps between the different levels of the maze; the type of alarm to be used; the ratio of staff to equipment; and the installation of fire exits, signs and alarms. I am pleased that I helped to create a situation in which those issues could be resolved, but it should not have needed the intervention of a Member of Parliament.

If the HSE had started out with a more helpful and constructive approach, it could have reached the same agreement with Mr. Burr from the start and avoided spending significant sums of public money and placing unnecessary stress on a hard-pressed small business. Instead, the HSE seemed to form the impression from early on that the only way that Mr. Burr could be made to comply was by issuing heavy warnings and going to the expense of a prohibition notice. Such a confrontational approach served only to intensify Mr. Burr’s mistrust of the HSE and a cycle of mutual suspicion and mistrust was created.

My personal experience of this case is that, when the HSE resorted to lawyers, far from making Mr. Burr more willing to accede to its demands, it made him more determined to resist, because he felt that the HSE was being unreasonable to the point of arrogance. Mr. Burr agrees that if I had not taken such an active interest in this case, the dispute might still be continuing, with ever escalating legal costs. The end result would have been the closure of his visitor attraction, which would have been a terrible loss to my constituency.

A public organisation should take more responsibility for avoiding such a destructive situation. The fact that it has been possible for the HSE to modify its demands in ways that Mr. Burr found acceptable suggests that there was always an alternative approach available. Instead, the HSE went to lawyers unnecessarily early because it was secure in the knowledge that the taxpayer was underwriting the costs. In a clear effort to pressure him into doing what he was told, Mr. Burr, who is not a rich man, was warned that he was likely to end up shouldering at least some of the costs.

Although the Minister will immediately recognise that this is not a complex area of law, or a complex case—although the safety dimensions are important—the HSE did not stint on the legal costs. It went to Bond Pearce, which is one of the top firms in the country. Its website describes it as

“a leading UK commercial law firm and one of the fastest growing”

The firm apparently earns £171,000 a year per lawyer. Having looked at the timesheets for what it charged the HSE, I am not surprised that Bond Pearce is growing so fast and earning so much per lawyer. The HSE sought to pass the costs on to my constituent, and I am sure that hon. Members will be interested to hear some of them. A £51 charge was made on 26 July 2005 for travelling to and from the HSE to collect papers—not much expensive legal knowledge required for that—and on the same day, £68 was charged for reviewing case law. Do people not go to lawyers precisely because they know the case law already? That is what lawyers are paid for, but in this case they charged £68 for reviewing it. Diarising a meeting on 2 August 2005 cost £17 and £34 was charged for checking the non-availability of dates on 22 February 2006—how long does that take? On 1 March 2006, £17 was charged for receiving a phone call from the tribunal changing a date. Reading an article in The Times and considering how to incorporate it into evidence cost £68 on 1 April 2006—a £68 charge for reading a newspaper. Leaving a voicemail message on 21 April 2006 cost £17 and so on. The solicitor then went on paternity leave, so the firm instructed counsel for a relatively straightforward case on which the solicitor had already clocked up hundreds and hundreds of pounds for reviewing the case law and reading the newspapers. Counsel would go over the same ground again, and thousands and thousands of pounds in further fees would be incurred.

Most of the costs that I have just cited were incurred after I had become involved in trying to broker a solution, when I would have hoped that the HSE would be prudent enough to allow me some scope to see whether I could succeed without it continuing to run up such costly fees. Apparently, the HSE is still clocking up fees, this time at taxpayers’ expense, by using the same external lawyer to conduct continuing correspondence with Mr. Burr, even though, as I understand it, most of the substantive issues relating to the case have now been resolved.

In passing, I should note that Bond Pearce is not exceptional; it is similar to most large firms in its charging practices. There is nothing surprising in the way in which it makes money, which is all the more reason for the HSE to have done more to avoid resorting to external law firms. According to its own calculations, the HSE is now thousands of pounds out of pocket, and so ultimately is the taxpayer. My constituent is certainly £15,000 worse off and suffering still from an unforgivable amount of stress, not least because once a public body resorts to expensive leading lawyers against a small business, the playing field becomes uneven. No small business such as Roves farm can afford the resources that a large corporation or, indeed, a wealthy individual can muster against the taxpayer-funded might of a body such as the HSE.

All that public money has been wasted and such a burden has been placed on a small business because the HSE chose to confront Mr. Burr. Throughout the affair, there seems to have been a cultural disposition on its part to avoid negotiation, to insist on Mr. Burr doing what he was told and then to threaten him with the consequences if he did not. The assessment of risk is clearly a crucial task, but it is also subjective and there ought always to be room for reasoned discussion. Instead, questioning of its judgment seems to have been regarded by the HSE from a very early stage not as a basis for discussion, but as an affront. That is symbolised by the fact that when I held a meeting at Mr. Burr’s farm to try to bring the sides together, the time spent by the HSE representatives at the meeting was added to the costs that it sought to recover from Mr. Burr. Only when I made the strongest representations that, in my view, such charging was an extraordinary interference with the democratic process—a constituent being charged when public officials met his Member of Parliament to try to resolve a dispute—did the HSE reconsider. However, the fact that the HSE could even think of doing such a thing suggests a culture in which any questioning of its decisions is regarded as unacceptable and to be resisted.

A small exchange at the end of the meeting exemplified the HSE’s adversarial approach. The aim of the meeting was specifically to address concerns about the maze. Some progress was made and I summed up with a list of further actions in the hope that a resolution would then be reached. However, instead of leaving at that point, one of the HSE team turned to Mr. Burr and said aggressively to him—I witnessed this—that they would be coming back to require changes to his preparations for a Christmas event. Those were minor issues and could easily have been left for another time. We could have parted following that meeting with a sense of some accommodation and the hope of resolution. Instead, with the HSE representative raising those issues in that way at that time, Mr. Burr felt that the HSE was retaliating for having been questioned by his MP and that it was vindictively undermining an event in which he and his family were investing large amounts of time to provide a treat for local children at Christmas. Further good will was sacrificed for no advantage to the public policy goals of the HSE. Whatever the technical issues involved, a less adversarial approach would have been more productive in resolving them more quickly and easily and therefore more efficiently, with less cost to the public purse and far less stress to my constituent.

My dealings with the deputy chief executive of the HSE and its response to the Hampton report on regulation suggest that the HSE is aware of the need to adapt and is already making welcome progress in its approach to some of the biggest and most complex issues that it encounters. However, Mr. Burr’s experience suggests that, at a more microcosmic level, the culture still requires change. Running a small business can be profoundly stressful and demanding, and most small businesses do not possess the resources to cope with statutory agencies whose approach all too often is geared to dealing with large public corporations.

I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister confirmed that she will ask the HSE to pay more attention at all levels of the organisation to the particular problems of small companies, such as Roves farm, and to demonstrate more sensitivity to them. I should also be grateful if she let me know what changes the HSE is making to implement the recommendation of the Hampton report that

“Regulators should recognise that a key element of their activity will be to allow, or even encourage, economic progress and only to intervene when there is a clear case for protection.”

I should also be grateful if she let me know what further changes the HSE is making to implement the recommendation of the Hampton report that businesses should be supported by regulators to comply with regulations—in other words, avoiding the adversarial approach that has characterised the HSE’s dealings with Mr. Burr. Finally, I should be grateful if the Minister wrote to me outlining what action she has taken to pursue those objectives.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) on securing the debate. In the customary way, he has raised an important issue. I certainly thank him for the opportunity to consider the HSE’s dealings with his constituent, Mr. Burr, in improving safety for the public and, in particular, children at Roves Farm visitor centre. I shall draw some general conclusions from that case and deal with each in turn. None the less, I regret that the issues have had to be raised in this Adjournment debate, as I believe that in the past months other routes could have been taken to reach a solution in this case.

My hon. Friend spent time highlighting the background to the Burr case. Perhaps I can add some information. As he said, Mr. Burr and his wife operate a visitor centre at the farm site. Many children attend the visitor centre every year, so it is important that health and safety is properly managed at the farm. The HSE aims to ensure that children can have maximum fun and learning at the farm in sensibly managed conditions. The HSE regulates many farms and visitor centres and uses a range of tools—such as verbal advice, a written report done on site or a letter sent after the visit—to ensure that an appropriate standard of health and safety is adhered to. When necessary, inspectors use their powers to require specific improvements or to stop activities until they are made safe through an improvement or prohibition notice. Appeals against such notices are rare.

Since Roves farm set up a visitor centre, the HSE, as my hon. Friend’s remarks suggested, has had to serve an unusually high number of notices to get work carried out to secure the health and safety of visitors and employees. I can assure my hon. Friend that that is not a typical regulatory response by the HSE when regulating a farm. I regret to add that the HSE’s experience since 2003 has been that inspectors have not always met with a positive response from Mr. Burr. They have given advice, usually written as well as verbal, but sadly their experience is that Mr. Burr does not deal well with issues when given informal advice and they have previously needed to serve three notices to make progress and get deficiencies remedied.

I think that my hon. Friend suggested that in some way the HSE rushed to a conclusion and rushed to a prohibition notice on the maze. I shall take hon. Members through the time scale. In December 2004, two inspectors became seriously concerned about the risk to visitors, especially children, to Roves Farm visitor centre using the straw bale maze. They spoke to Mr. Burr, suggesting that he should, as the law requires him to do, carry out a formal risk assessment, so that they could have a discussion about whether there was proper management of risks well before the summer season of 2005. They asked Mr. Burr to contact them to confirm when the work had been done.

By early summer 2005, Mr. Burr had not responded, and as far as the HSE was concerned he had not taken any action. Inspectors then sought the advice of experts from within the HSE and from the fire brigade. Those experts visited the farm in July 2005 and confirmed that, in their opinion, there were serious deficiencies in fire prevention, fire escape, fire alarm and fire fighting measures in connection with the maze—in essence, they said that there was a significant risk of a fire starting in the straw bale maze. The design of the maze, as my hon. Friend has said, was an interesting one. However, the design made it foreseeable that, in the event of a fire, a child could be trapped in a smoke-filled tunnel, unable to find an exit.

I want to put on record the issues that the prohibition notice was meant to address. The bale maze was constructed of compressed large straw-bales, which had been assembled to provide a three-dimensional complex of narrow tunnels. The tunnels were unlit, and extended over an area of more than19 m by 10 m. They were 3.75 m deep, and the floors were covered in a fine layer of crushed straw that varied in depth but was at least 2 cm deep. Some of the tunnels were 19 m long. At any one time there could be more than 25 children, from pre-school age upwards, using the maze. The notice indicated that there was poor control over sources of ignition within the maze area. Dry straw on the floors of the tunnels was likely to transmit fire and smoke rapidly. There were poor arrangements for detecting a fire and there was no means of raising an alarm inside the maze. Escape from the maze was only possible from one side via the pre-existing tunnels, and no provision was made for fire escape or recovery of casualties. The means of raising the alarm was by blowing a whistle, but at the time of the HSE's inspection the whistle was missing. The alarm was tested under silent conditions and was heard faintly from within the stack only after 18 soundings, which in the HSE's opinion was unsatisfactory. The evacuation system was inadequate. A test evacuation had been made and it took approximately 10 minutes.

As I said, it was foreseeable that in the event of a fire, a child could be trapped in a smoke-filled tunnel unable to find an exit and would not be likely to be rescued before he or she succumbed to fumes or flames. In fact, the experts—not only the HSE inspectors but the fire brigade as well—advised that there was a serious risk of multiple fatalities should a fire occur. I also want to put on record that the prohibition notice was affirmed by the tribunal without modification.

Before the Minister moves on from that point, does she accept that the HSE and Mr. Burr have now reached agreement on the measures that should be put in place to protect the public? Mr. Burr has always had the interests of the public at the front of his mind and agreement has now been reached on how those interests are best served. Given that, surely the issue is not the agreement, but why it could not have been reached earlier.

I have put on record the prohibition notice because my hon. Friend sought to draw some general conclusions from the way in which the matter relating to the farm was dealt with, and I do not think that those general conclusions are appropriate in this case. There was a serious health and safety issue. I hope also that by indicating the time scale in which Mr. Burr was given the opportunity to address some of the issues relating to the risk assessment, I might persuade my hon. Friend to agree that the HSE did not act precipitately, but gave ample opportunity to a small business person to make suitable arrangements to deal with the serious matters that were identified by both the fire service and the HSE.

My hon. Friend’s help was very much appreciated by the HSE. He acted as a mediator, because Mr. Burr at one point refused to have direct contact with HSE inspectors. I trust that my hon. Friend will agree that the seven-month period for carrying out the risk assessment does not suggest a heavy-handed approach by the HSE, and that the HSE did not unnecessarily push a small business person into making expensive modifications to the maze.

As my hon. Friend said, there was a prolonged exchange of letters and e-mails. The reason why the HSE had to continue to deal with its legal advisers was that Mr. and Mrs. Burr, although they accepted the modifications, did not withdraw their appeal until the tribunal hearing. By that stage the witnesses and HSE's legal advisers had already incurred significant preparation costs. My hon. Friend has highlighted the various costs and he will be aware that it is for the county court to consider the details of costs and their justification. If Mr. Burr considers them unreasonable, he can pursue that option.

My hon. Friend has made a number of criticisms of the HSE’s handling of the case. I recognise his irritation, annoyance and probable anger at the fact that the HSE was going to charge for the time that one of its inspectors had spent with him. That was a misunderstanding and, as my hon. Friend has indicated, those costs have been removed from the costs of the HSE’s action. I hope that he will accept the HSE’s apology.

The case could have been resolved easily and far more quickly than it was, but it takes two to tango, as they say. I do not judge Mr. Burr on his reasons for not liking the HSE, but it offered assistance and support to him and he failed for some reason to respond positively. I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that the HSE had a duty to ensure that the modifications were made to a structure that posed a serious fire risk for young children and, until they were made, to put a prohibition notice in place. As I said, the tribunal affirmed that prohibition notice without modification.

I should like gently to correct my hon. Friend’s comment about what the tribunal told Mr. Burr and the HSE. They were not told to go and sort out the fundamental issue of making the maze safe; they were advised to sort out the costs. I welcome, however, the positive comments that he made about the HSE’s deputy chief executive.

The Hampton report is about better regulation of small businesses and the burdens that health and safety issues appear to place on them. That report has been praised by the Better Regulation Commission because of the efforts that are being made to ensure that the burdens are balanced and proportionate. I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that the HSE did not take action because it wanted to impose additional burdens on Mr. Burr and the visitor centre, but that it had to take action based on the expert advice of its own people and of the fire service. A fire risk and a danger to children from my hon. Friend’s constituency and beyond had been identified. I regret the need for the debate, but I know that the HSE wants to reach a solution and a conclusion and I hope that the debate results in discussions continuing in a way that ensures Mr. Burr does not feel imposed upon.