The panel debating the impact of the Lofstedt review quickly divided into ‘yes’ and ‘no’ camps on the issue of whether health and safety legislation and compliance are a burden or not.
Asked by chair Richard Pollock, president of the American Society of Safety Engineers, to ‘set out their stalls’, the TUC’s Hugh Robertson said the most important thing in the period of change we are currently going through should be to ensure that the protection of workers is not diluted.
He added: “Lofstedt was not asked to improve health and safety but to ‘reduce the burden’ of health and safety, but I don’t think it is a burden. But if you start off by making that the question, then you will get the wrong answers.”
James Wolfe, deputy director of health and well-being at the DWP, was quick to defend the Government, warning there is a danger of “lulling ourselves into a fake sense of security”. He went on: “Both Chris Grayling and Mark Hoban [former and current employment ministers] were clear that maintaining our good health and safety record is a key part of our culture.
“But the bottom line is that health and safety as a burden is the view of the general population, so we need to address that.”
Stephen Coppin, associate director at 3c Risk Ltd, emphasised the danger – in light of the current deregulatory agenda – of withdrawing Approved Codes of Practice, and especially the ACoP to the Management Regulations. He said: “ACoPs outline the right way to comply with regulations. If we are now to totally rely on reams of guidance, I find that worrying.
“The Management Regs are there to ensure we do not go back in time to when the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 came in, when we were all safety officers, responsible for health and safety. It is a management responsibility!”
Mr Coppin reminded delegates of IOSH’s current e-petition on the removal of this ACoP and encouraged everyone to sign up to it at: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/46262
James Wolfe claimed that the argument that more regulation equals better safety is “seductive and not well0-proven”. He said: “Prof Lofstedt didn’t recommend sweeping changes but rather a set of sensible changes that maintain the substance and power of the existing regulations. In SMEs, few managers read whole sets of legislation, so they rely heavily on guidance. Businesses must have a realistic chance of understanding of what they need to do.”
Hugh Robertson agreed that simplified regulations are what everyone wants but argued that, instead of getting that, we are getting deregulation, which, he said, is “happening at such a speed that we can’t keep up. Look at the RIDDOR change from three to seven-day reporting. You still have to record after three days, so how is that simplifying things?”
Robertson also referred to the survey published by the EEF yesterday, which revealed that seven out of 10 companies experienced an increase in compliance costs over the last three years, and eight out of 10 said compliance was taking more time. “But there has been no new legislation in that time, so how can that be?” he asked.
Stephen Coppin agreed that the recent changes have led to more bureaucracy and confusion, and less clarity on what is required as a result of consolidating and withdrawing ACoPs. “The real challenge for any organisation now,” he maintained, “is to try to find what they need from the HSE website and all the reams of guidance.”
James Wolfe strongly argued the case that the burden on business has reduced in the last three years, citing low-risk businesses with good health and safety records as one example, and much better access to information for SMEs. He said: “These things cost businesses time and money, and it is important to recognise that we are having this discussion in very difficult economic times.”
But Hugh Robertson maintained that health and safety simply is not a burden and accused the Government of making it all about numbers, by coming up with things like the target of a 50-per-cent reduction in regulations by 2014.
James Wolfe retorted that this 50 per cent is not a target – “it is a reflection of what is planned. There is no industry within DWP to slash and burn to reach this figure.”
Asked by a delegate from the floor for his view of the leadership and communication from David Cameron, Wolfe said: “The prime minister clearly feels strongly about health and safety and you’ve got to understand that, if a PM comes into office with the view that businesses are being held back by health and safety, that clearly reflects the thinking of a large part of the UK population.
“Nobody wants to see an increase in the number of people killed or injured, including the prime minister. But something has happened to the reputation of health and safety. Look at the HSE’s challenge panels. The one set up to challenge regulatory decisions has only had one case, while the myth-buster panel has had hundreds.
“It really does have so much to do with perception.”
“Basically, if we can persuade the prime minister that the framework is simple and it works, then we can convince the whole country.”
