CWU NW Regional Health And Safety Forum Responds To H&S Review

With a closing date of 29th July, the Löfstedt Review of health and safety legislation call for evidence, was closed last week.

Derek Maylor, Secretary to the CWU’s North West Health & Safety Forum responded on behalf of the forum to various questions asked in the call to evidence document.

Below are details of the forum’s response:

Question 1: Are there any particular health and safety regulations (or ACoPs) that have significantly improved health and safety and should not be changed?

Whilst outside the remit of this consolation and merely for an example – the The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 came into effect in October 2006 replacing over 70 pieces of fire safety law and has simplified legislative requirements.

However – the burdens to business should not outweigh the burdens to workers as individuals, families and cost to society caused by workplace injury and ill health. We already have less legislation than 30 years ago. There is less proactive enforcement by the HSE or Local Authorities prior to the 35% cut to HSE and 28% cut to LA’s.

Question 8: Are there any lessons that can be learned from the way other EU countries have approached the regulation of health and safety, in terms of (a) their overall approach and (b) regulating for particular risks or hazards?

Comparisons between the UK’s health and safety system and health and safety organisation in the rest of the EU whilst interesting would be only be beneficial to British industry if we are to raise our standards to be the leaders – not look for the lowest common denominator. The lower financial costs to business, the short and long term costs to the NHS and the moral costs to the workers should all be in the equation.

Question 9: Can you provide evidence that the requirements of EU Directives have or have not been unnecessarily enhanced (‘gold-plated’) when incorporated into UK health and safety regulation?

We have seen no evidence to change our opinion that ‘gold-plating' is endemic on UK Health and Safety legislation and consequently conclude that it is a myth.

Question 10: Does health and safety law suitably place responsibility in an appropriate way on those that create risk? If not what changes would be required?

Similar to previously mentioned RRO (fire) 2005 has led to prosecutions preventing death/injury. The risk to worker/society should be prosecuted waiting for an incident or following a workplace injury.

Using a phrase “where that failure places one or more relevant persons at risk of death or serious injury” (or similar) would encourage pre-emptive prosecution before an incident which causes injury occurs.    

Any other comments/evidence?

The business community, with the exception of a few excellent companies, despite years and major attempts by the HSE to educate them; knows little about the implementation of health and safety in the workplace, nor does it understand much of the legislation. The misinterpretation, whether intentional or by ignorance, of current legislation has often led to a belt and braces approach which has allowed British media to crate the “elf-and-safety” mythical beast.

We would fundamentally dispute that employers are burdened with Health and safety regulations. As previously mentioned there are less now than 30 years ago. They are not “over enforced” as many companies will generally have an inspection only once in 38 years unless they have a major incident or are involved with significant hazards. Only one in thirteen major injuries is even investigated.

We would further argue that cuts in resourcing the HSE need to be reversed.  Without the [even remote] possibility of a proactive inspection, unscrupulous employers will play fast and loose with health & safety and undercut those many excellent employers who respect legislation, their employees and society in general.

Furthermore we would like to see less focus on reducing regulation and recognition that applying [and enforcing] the current regulations allows businesses to operate competitively with no residual cost to society such as that being picked up by the NHS where a business takes the risk [and the profit] but the NHS pays for the treatment of an injury or long term health problem.

You can also download the Löfstedt Review Document from the E-Library and input search words: 'Lofstedt Review'

Source: CWU NW H&S Forum

Designed, Hosted and Maintained by Union Safety Services