The Löfstedt Review of Health and Safety Legislation And Com

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Letter to Branches




No. 414 /11
Ref EX5
Date: 26 April 2011

To: All Branches


Dear Colleagues

The Löfstedt Review of Health and Safety Legislation And Compensation:
As previously reported to Branches in LTB 315/11 on 30 March, the Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP) Minister for Employment, Chris Grayling MP, has commissioned an independent review of health and safety legislation to consider the opportunities for reducing the burden of health and safety laws in the UK.

The Department for Work and Pensions has now published a four-page document (copy attached) which outlines the “draft terms of reference” for the government-commissioned review of health and safety law announced by Mr Grayling last month
as part of the Coalition government's massive shake-up of Britain’s Health and Safety regulatory system. The so called "Independent" review is to be led by government appointed Professor Ragnar Löfstedt, director of the King’s Centre for Risk Management at King’s College, London.

In considering the opportunities for reducing the burden of health and safety legislation on UK businesses and employers the Review Panel will explore the scope for consolidating, simplifying or abolishing regulations, at the same time, examining
whether a clear link exists between regulation and positive health and safety performance. The review will gather evidence from a range of key stakeholders, including Government bodies, employers’ organisations, Trade Unions, professional health and safety bodies, and academics.

The published 'Terms of Reference' details reveal that 17 Acts owned and enforced by the HSE will be outside the remit of the review. The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Health and Safety (Offences) Act 2008 being two of the most prominent and generic acts on this list. (See attached full list of the 17 Acts owned and enforced by the HSE). However, any comments received from stakeholders in relation to these Acts will be taken into consideration as part of the review.

Within the scope of the Lofstedt review however will be the 200 sets of Health and Safety Regulations (statutory instruments) owned and enforced by the HSE and local authorities, along with the associated Approved Codes of Practice which provide
advice, with special legal status, on compliance with health and safety law.

Regulations owned and enforced by other bodies, other than the HSE/Local Authorities, such as those dealing with fire, product and transport safety and other issues widely perceived to be health and safety, such as working time, but not “owned” by
the HSE will not be covered. For example Regulations enforced by the Office of Rail Regulation, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the Environment Agency and the Food Standards Agency – will not be covered.
The four-page document states that the review will gather evidence from a range of key stakeholders to determine:
the scope for consolidating, simplifying or abolishing regulations
 
whether the requirements of EU Directives are being unnecessarily enhanced or “gold-plated” on translation into UK law
 
if lessons can be learned from comparison with health and safety regimes in other countries
 
whether there is a clear link between regulation and positive health and safety outcomes
 
if there is evidence of inappropriate litigation and compensation arising from health and safety legislation; and
 
whether changes to legislation are needed to clarify the legal position of employers in cases where employees act in an irresponsible manner.
Building on the Lord Young Report findings regarding the compensation culture, the Löfstedt review will also scrutinise whether there is any evidence of inappropriate litigation and compensation arising from health and safety legislation. It will also
look at whether changes to legislation could help clarify the legal position of employers in situations where employees act in an irresponsible manner and compromise safety.
The Review Panel Chair, Professor Ragnar Lofstedt is a risk management specialist and career academic from King’s College London with an 'anti-regulation' reputation and background. He is being supported in the review by a panel which we now
know comprises of six members: an MP from each of the three main political parties as “legislature representatives” — Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen, Lib Dem MP John Thurso and Labour MP Andrew Miller, “employer representative” John Armitt,
chairman of the Olympic Delivery Authority, "employee representative" Sarah Veale, head of the TUC’s equity and employment rights department and Dr Adam Marshall, policy director at the British Chamber of Commerce, as the “small business
representative”.  This amounts to two government representatives, two business representatives (all no doubt supporting the anti-health and safety de-regulation line), one Labour MP and one TUC representative.

This government directed exercise is referred to as an 'independent review of health and safety legislation' - it's seems clearly to be far from that! The cards are heavily stacked against the two Labour and Trade Union members of the Review Panel and it will be difficult to accomplish much by way of defending current health and safety regulations. These factors predetermine to a large extent the outcome which looks essentially to endorse government policy with the review panel going through
the motions.

There is much that is good about the current health and safety regime, but aspects that can, and should, be improved are being ignored by the government and this review i.e. HSE Resources and Enforcement. This review is another negative move and Professor Lofstedt is not a Safety Professional and not the best person qualified to lead such a review. This review will not address the real issues of the unacceptable number of deaths and injuries at work every year in the UK and has been set up based on supposition and the health and safety myths pedaled by the media and this present anti-health and safety government. Improving health and safety outcomes is just not on the agenda. The review will assess whether the requirements of EU directives being ‘gold-plated’ by the UK unnecessarily, during their transposition into UK law. So called ‘gold-plating' however, is a myth that other previous reviews have dismissed. In relation to government claims regarding the need to simplify health and safety regulations, this is more nonsense because this has been ongoing since the HSE launched its 'simplification plan' in 2006. Duplication of this previous work is obviously being ignored for ulterior motives.

As for this government's continual spurious argument that there are too many health and safety laws and regulations, the fact is that there is less health and safety laws now in the UK than there was 40 years ago, less paper work, less time required by
employers, less spot inspection of workplaces by HSE Inspectors and LA EHO Inspectors. Health and Safety Inspectors on average visit UK workplaces about once in every 35 years now and only 1 in 13 major and fatal injuries are investigated. Health
and Safety prosecutions have gone down by 50% over the last 10 years and in 98% of major injuries there is no enforcement action taken against the employer at all, despite the law being broken. And all that was before the Government recently implemented cuts of 35% in the budget of the Health and Safety Executive and 28% cuts to Local Authorities budgets which will further reduce the already ineffective state of policing UK workplace safety and health which in turn will allow more workers to be killed, injured, and made ill at a rate never reported in the tabloid press.

As a result of these major financial cuts the HSE have subsequently announced an annual cut of 11,000 Health and Safety Workplace Inspections, representing a third of all the Inspections carried out. Local Authorities, also suffering major financial cuts
have indicated a further 65,000 Safety Inspections carried out by their EHO Inspectors will be cut.

Comparisons between the UK’s health and safety system and health and safety regimes in other countries will be interesting and perhaps predictable as better standards are ignored and weaker standards become the benchmark in this de-regulation
drive. There is no reference, also, to identifying areas that could benefit from improvement and strengthening of health and safety standards and regulation and there seems to be insufficient time for the review panel to assess in detail over 200 sets
of Health and Safety Regulations and consult with stakeholders, if it is to report back by autumn. We remain concerned that over-simplification could erode essential worker and public health and safety protection. Employers Organisations continue to
welcome the review and see it as an opportunity to split from the European health and safety direction.

Health and Safety at work is under sustained by the Coalition Government. The CWU, TUC, other Unions and Safety Campaign groups will do their utmost to ensure the review team listens to the voice of those affected by the UK's health and safety regime.

Yours Sincerely


Dave Joyce
National Health, Safety & Environment Officer

Attachments:
- Löfstedt Review of Health and Safety Legislation and Compensation Terms of Reference
- Acts owned and enforced by HSE
- Health and Safety Legislation Review Panel Membership
 

loftstedt.doc