Government to cut Health and Safety beyond Löfstedt recommendations
In one of his first public appearances of 2012, David Cameron targeted the UK’s ‘health and safety monster’ and claimed that 2012 would be the year it was ‘killed off for good’.
This kind of rhetoric, along with new targets and deadlines to cut Health and Safety legislation, has disappointed many commentators who had been encouraged after Ministers accepted the more measured approach laid out by Professor Ragnar Löfstedt in his Government-commissioned report in late 2011.
Professor Löfstedt’s findings and recommendations were generally well received and supported by policy-makers and Health and Safety professionals alike, however many are now expressing concern about the Government’s response.
After reviewing 200 pieces of Health and Safety law and using a public consultation, Löfstedt found that the UK’s health and safety system is broadly fit for purpose but recommended that sector-specific consolidation could see the overall number of regulations reduced by 35% by April 2015.
The Government’s direct response states that it will implement the recommendations of the report, along with ‘ongoing HSE plans’, but cut regulation by at least 50% by April 2014.
The Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) has expressed its concern that this new 50% target is ‘arbitrary and isn’t backed by evidence’ and that there is a risk that the Löfstedt–recommended ‘consolidation’ could be overstated and interpreted as deregulation.
There is a danger that widespread support for attempts to make Health and Safety law more accessible and simpler for businesses could be undermined by Ministers loading too much responsibility under restricted timescales onto the HSE, which is still coming to terms with its 35% budget cut. In broader terms there are also concerns that Government is pressing on too far beyond the limits set out in its own review, especially seeing as Löfstedt summarised that there is ‘no case for radically altering current health and safety legislation’.
Natural England granted civil sanction powers
Natural England, the agency responsible for the protection and improvement of England’s natural environment, has been granted increased enforcement powers enabling its inspectors to impose civil sanctions for breaches of landscape protection and wildlife law.
The powers were made available to Natural England on 3rd January 2012 and apply to a variety of offences concerning protected species, Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), habitat protection and breaches of the Environmental Damage Regulations.
Until now the only tool available to the regulator when dealing with illegal activities that have impacted wildlife, geology and landscapes, had been criminal prosecutions which often required costly and time-consuming court proceedings.
Civil sanctions offer an alternative, enabling Natural England to impose fixed penalties for a range of offences as well as variable fines which can reach £250,000. The new powers mean the regulator can also order offenders to halt damaging activities, restore habitats or voluntarily make amends for their actions.
Complying with civil sanctions prevents the possibility for further action, including prosecution and the accompanying criminal record. However, Natural England will still pursue prosecutions for the most environmentally damaging, reckless and premeditated offences.
It remains to be seen how frequently civil sanctions will be issued: the Environment Agency was granted the same powers in 2011 and used them once in 12 months. In any case the development does offer Natural England more robust and effective enforcement options which could spell bad news for those found flouting wildlife and conservation law.
Compliance Traffic Light System Launched
Thanks to our first product development of 2012, ELUS and HASLUS subscribers will now be able to use our new Traffic Light Tool which provides an instant visual indication of compliance with relevant legislation.
Developed in response to ideas and feedback from current subscribers, this free upgrade to the ELUS and HASLUS products makes it quick and easy to see where additional work is required to achieve full compliance.
The traffic light tool means that as well as being able to add comments to individual legislation, users will now be able to colour code these legislation according to their compliance status making it simple to highlight legislation where more should be done to achieve compliance whilst reviewing the legal register.
The traffic light tool includes the three traditional traffic light colours, red, amber and green, as well as a fourth option, blue, which we feel users may find useful.
More information on this free upgrade to the ELUS and HASLUS systems is available on the product homepage. For a free trial of ELUS or HASLUS, click here.
Löfstedt health and safety law report released
Professor Ragnar E Löfstedt’s eagerly-awaited report on the UK’s health and safety law has been published, with the author recommending that the self-employed be exempted from health and safety law.
The Government commissioned Professor Löfstedt’s review of health and safety law earlier in the year as part of its efforts to remove the burden of red tape on businesses and to tackle the perceived health and safety and compensation culture.
In the report Professor Löfstedt makes it clear that, in general, there is no case for radically altering current health and safety legislation, as the regulations place responsibilities primarily on those who create the risks, recognising that they are best placed to decide how to control them and allowing them to do so in a proportionate manner.
Nonetheless, a series of recommendations are made to address a number of factors that drive businesses to go beyond what the regulations require and beyond what is proportionate.
The main recommends in the report include:
• the self-employed whose work activities pose no potential risk of harm to others should be exempted from health and safety law;
• the HSE should review all of its Approved Codes of Practice (ACoPs) with the initial phase completed by June 2012;
• the HSE should undertake a programme of sector-specific consolidations of regulations to be completed by April 2015;
• legislation should be changed to give HSE the authority to direct all local authority health and safety inspection and enforcement activity;
• the ‘pre-action protocol’ and the regulatory provisions that impose ‘strict liability’ should be reviewed to discourage employees taking legal action against an employer that has done everything that was reasonably practicable and foreseeable to control the risk.
The report recommends a small number of laws which should be considered for revocation, including the Notification of Tower Cranes Regulations 2010 (because there is no evidence of quantifiable benefits to health and safety outcomes) and the Construction (Head Protection) Regulations 1989 (because they duplicate the responsibilities set out in the PPE Regulations 1992).
The review also recommends amendments to a number of other regulations, including the Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981, to remove the requirement for the HSE to approve the training and qualifications of appointed first-aid personnel; RIDDOR 1995, to provide clarity for businesses on how to comply; and the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989, regarding the regularity of PAT testing.
Reaction to the report has been generally positive and Ministers have been vocal in their support of the recommendations, in particular those on revoking and consolidating regulations.
Make sure you keep up to date on changes in health and safety law by using our HASLUS service. Take a out a free trial today.
Consultation on changes to Asbestos Regulations
The HSE has released a consultation setting out it's proposals to introduce revised Control of Asbestos Regulations.
The Consultation is needed, say the HSE, to implement the changes required to comply with the European Commission's (EC) reasoned opinion on the UK Government's transposition of Directive 83/477/EEC as amended by 2003/18/EC on the protection of workers from the risks of exposure to asbestos at work, which was implemented in the UK by the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006.
The EC’s view is that the UK has not fully implemented Article 3(3) of the Directive which provides the possibility for an exemption from three requirements set out in the Directive.
The three requirements from which work may be exempt are: notification of work, medical examinations and record keeping. In the EC’s view the omission of the two terms in the UK Regulations has the effect of widening the scope of the exemption allowing more types of work to be exempt from the three requirements than was intended.
Government has accepted the opinion and that UK legislation must be changed to include the two omitted terms, so has issued a consultation on revoking the existing Regulations in their entirety and issuing a single set of revised regulations, to avoid bring out an amendment Regulations.
The Consultation can be viewed here.