 |
 |
|
Government and Business Attacks On Health & Safety Law Continues The latest attack on health and safety legislation as being a 'red tape' burden on business continues with government plans to axe the requirement on firms to hold onto their insurance records for 40 years. As a result, workers who develop 'long-tail' diseases could miss out on compensation. The draft regulations also seek to remove the requirement on businesses to display a current employers' liability insurance certificate - in other words no public proof of insurance is required! Critics argue that many occupational diseases, for example occupational cancers, may only develop decades after a worker was exposed to risks. The current requirement on firms to retain their Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance details for 40 years was designed to ensure the insurer responsible for a payout for one of these 'long-tail' diseases - the insurer covering the firm at the time the negligent exposures occurred - could be identified. But the government has said the current legal requirement, which is unenforced and which does not carry a penalty for a breach anyway, is not working so should be axed. That rather than do something about the failure of business abide by the law. Two early day motions submitted last week by Labour MPs oppose the draft regulations, whilst a TUC briefing for unions says: "When the DWP consulted on the proposals there was opposition from lawyers, insurers, trade unions and victim support groups." Responding last week in the Commons to criticism of the proposals, Commons leader Harriet Harman said: "We want to make sure there is as high as possible levels of health and safety at work but with the most effective regulation." The government's claims that the measure would lead to millions in savings for business have been widely disputed, with TUC's briefing noting: 'In fact the very small administrative 'burden' which is imposed on employers is greatly offset by the benefit to those who may be injured or made ill as a result of employer negligence. Regulations such as this undermine genuine attempts to remove unnecessary burdens, simplify regulation and ensure that regulation is more effective.' It has been noted by many MPs and trade unionists that more than ever it appears that whatever the CBI want, the governments delivers! This is just one more example. Source: TUC Risks |
 |