No evidence for deregulation of UK health and safety law as second review announced

The man charged with leading both reviews, Ragnar Löfstedt, told Commercial Risk Europe that he is not against deregulation if decisions are based on scientific, risk-based evidence and there is proof that current laws are causing a burden to business whilst not preventing death or injury. However, Mr Löfstedt, Professor of Risk Management and the Director of King’s Centre for Risk Management at King’s College in London, concluded in his initial Independent Review of the UK’s Health and Safety legislation as recently as November 2011 that current regulation in the UK is ‘broadly fit for purpose’. He told the Institute of Risk Management’s (IRM) annual conference this week that he and his team had found no evidence for drastically altering current health and safety regulation. “I am promoting science-based regulation. I am happy to deregulate if we have the evidence that it is appropriate to do so. By evidence I mean proof that unnecessary bureaucracy is putting pressure on business and secondly that there is no evidence that deregulation will increase injury or death in the workplace. If I see those factors in place I am willing to consider them for my review of the review,” Mr Löfstedt told CRE.hide“So if people come to me with examples of regulation causing unnecessary bureaucracy and giving industry a headache I am more than willing to consider those views on the condition that changes would not lead to excess injuries or deaths in workplace, otherwise I am not interested,” he added. In March 2011, the UK government set up the initial independent review to consider opportunities for ‘reducing the burden of health and safety legislation on UK businesses while maintaining the progress made in improving health and safety outcomes’. The Löfstedt Report, published on Nov 28 of last year, therefore had a clear deregulatory mandate. But it concluded that based on the views expressed by a wide range of stakeholders, including industry and employer representative groups, there is no evidence to support such a move. The review included over 250 calls for evidence. Furthermore, it found evidence that work-related ill health and injury is itself a considerable burden to business, and society more generally, and that the regulatory regime offers vital protection to employees and the public. In other words health and safety regulation in the UK is set, in general, at appropriate levels. The review did make 26 recommendations to improve health and safety laws, all of which were accepted and endorsed by the UK government. While the recommendations have been broadly praised, Mr Löfstedt admitted that a number of politicians wanted him to be more radical and ‘cut back health and safety legislation to the bone and do radical things to the Health and Safety Commission (HSC)’. They are not happy with the review, he said. The British Prime Minister David Cameron has said this year that he believes health and safety laws are holding back UK business. Mr Cameron promised in his election manifesto to tackle what some believe to be an overly burdensome set of regulations that render UK business uncompetitive. Since then Mr Löfstedt and his team have been asked by the UK’s Minister of Employment, Chris Grayling, to conduct a review of last year’s review and report back before the end of 2012. As well as considering the merits of the initial review’s conclusions it will consider how the government has acted on the implementation of its 26 recommendations. At a keynote speech at the IRM conference in Manchester Mr Löfstedt gave details of some of the key recommendations. The report said that the Health and Safety Executive should undertake a consolidation programme for sector specific health and safety regulations to reduce the overall number by around 35%. “This will provide an opportunity to streamline and simplify those laws that apply only to specific industry sectors,” said Mr Löfstedt. “There will be a short-term cost with medium- to long-term gain. We want simplified clearer regulations going forward.” Certain quarters have questioned whether health and safety regulation should apply equally to all organisations or whether they should target larger and high-risk industries. They argue that the bureaucratic burden is currently too high, particularly for smaller firms. The review recommended that government should help small businesses to understand and comply with regulatory requirements but that the legal obligation to do so should be based on a level of risk in a particular workplace and not the size of firm. So that small firms should not be exempt from current rules. But, it concluded that self-employed workers undertaking activities that pose no harm to others should be exempt. “This is in line with other practices in Europe. But be very clear, self-employed workers in risky areas such as the construction sector or agricultural sector should not be exempt,” explained Mr Löfstedt. Speaking on November’s review in general and with particular reference to a scaled regulatory system Steve Fowler, Chief Executive of the IRM, told CRE: “Everyone who has been spoken to about the review from all angles—the unions to the employers—have all said that in heavy industry health and safety is not a burden. The real burden is having people injured or killed at work. If there is a burden it is at the bottom end of business. Should they be subjected to the same levels of legislation that apply to mining, agriculture and deep-sea exploration? It is at that end that change may need to happen, if at all.” Mr Fowler said he hopes the IRM will be involved in the upcoming review. Another key recommendation to emerge from the Löfstedt Report is for the HSC to be granted the authority to direct all local authority health and safety inspection and enforcement activity to ensure a more even standard of regulatory approach across the UK. It also recommended the establishment of a Risk Select Committee in the UK’s House of Lords and closer cooperation with EU health and safety legislators, from whom an increasing number of rules are being passed down.

No evidence for deregulation of UK health and safety law as second review announced

Want to read this article?

Read Next

UK arenas face heightened terror threat, says Pool Re, as Martyn’s Law remains in draft form

Talanx ‘increasingly confident’ of beating full-year profit forecast on Q1 results

US property market stabilises but concern over casualty loss trends

AGCS’s revenue falls in Q1 as rate momentum slows

UK tells firms not to pay ransoms in cyberattacks

UK arenas face heightened terror threat, says Pool Re, as Martyn’s Law remains in draft form

Talanx ‘increasingly confident’ of beating full-year profit forecast on Q1 results

US property market stabilises but concern over casualty loss trends

AGCS’s revenue falls in Q1 as rate momentum slows

UK tells firms not to pay ransoms in cyberattacks

Want to read this article?

Read Next

UK arenas face heightened terror threat, says Pool Re, as Martyn’s Law remains in draft form

Talanx ‘increasingly confident’ of beating full-year profit forecast on Q1 results

US property market stabilises but concern over casualty loss trends

AGCS’s revenue falls in Q1 as rate momentum slows

UK tells firms not to pay ransoms in cyberattacks

Related Articles