A proposed change to civil liability laws in relation to breaches of health and safety duties has been included in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, which is currently working its way through Parliament.
The Bill, which makes provision for a broad range of changes to the business regulatory regime, was debated in the House of Commons earlier this week and will now be considered by the House of Lords.
During this week’s debate, the Government successfully forced through a clause that will amend the HSWA 1974, by removing the right to bring civil claims for breach of a statutory duty contained in certain health and safety legislation. The proposal fulfils the Government’s commitment to reduce the perceived burden of health and safety, in line with the Löfstedt report’s recommendations.
Introducing the clause, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills Matthew Hancock said: “Prof Löfstedt identified the unfairness that can arise when health and safety at work regulations impose a strict duty on employers that makes them liable to pay compensation to employees injured or made ill by their work, despite all reasonable steps having been taken to protect them from harm.
“Employers can, for example, be held liable for damages when an injury is caused by equipment failure, even when a rigorous examination would not have revealed the defect. The new clause is designed to address that and other unfair consequences of the existing health and safety system.”
The result of ensuring that employers who have taken all reasonable precautions cannot be sued for a technical breach will be to “reduce the impression among many businesses, especially small firms, that they are liable to health and safety legislation in many cases when they are not”.
A number of Labour MPs slammed the proposal, insisting that the Government was trying to push through the change without having carried out any proper consultation, research, or impact assessment.
Iain Wright MP described the proposal as another example of ministers seeking to water down civil redress on the basis of “anecdote, ideology and perception”, referring to Mr Hancock as “the Mike Yarwood of the House of Commons”.
He urged the minister to consider allowing employers to sue third parties, such as manufacturers or suppliers of potentially defective goods, in cases where there is no fault on the part of either employer or employee.
Labour MP David Anderson continued with the “perceptions” theme, by suggesting that the Bill will create a new impression that “all bets are off; that employers do not have to care about health and safety, and that people can do what they want as long as they believe it is reasonable”.
Opposition MP Julie Hilling warned that not only could the Bill reverse years of improvement in the number of work-related deaths and injuries but also make things worse in terms of conditions that give rise to long-term health problems, such as repetitive strain injury.
Defending the proposal, Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen attacked Labour MPs for failing to consider the economic consequences that can result from a perception that health and safety is burdensome and restrictive. He said: “They seem to believe that there is no cost to over-compliance with regulations, but there is not only a cost to our economy and the Exchequer, which is important at the moment, but a cost borne by the long-term unemployed and the workless.
“They pay for over-compliance by not having access to the workplace, which vastly decreases their life expectancy. They are the people paying the price.”
Mr Hancock addressed the suggestion that the Government had not consulted properly on the proposal by highlighting that the overall Löfstedt review had been based on around 400 submissions of stakeholder evidence. He also insisted that because employers do not make a distinction between health and safety measures on a civil and criminal basis, their focus is diverted away from the need to ensure rigorous health and safety and towards an obsession with over-compliance and technicalities that are not helpful to outcomes.
The vote showed a clear division in the House, with 295 in favour versus 215 against, but the clause still made its way on to the Bill.
This is good news for good employers, however this is also good news for bad employers!
There seems to be some inference that this is going to save public money. If the courts would take ongoing costs into account, in thier financial penalties – e.g. How much it costs the state for an individual to never work again because of a guilty employers neglegence? If that were taken into account, then we, the taxpayers wouldn’t be paying. Plus innocent employers won’t be affected at all.
Once again SHP does itself no favours, by immediately biasing the article through its title, favouring health and safety at any cost. The title could easily been changed to ‘New amendments to H&S bill’ as the neutral stance. What about the converse of your title ‘More employee H&S burdens removed’ which was equally another view reported within that article.It accepts one side of the argument biasing it.
In a society where all seem to want authority, or privilege but none appear willing to be accountable for their own actions; this clause seems to make eminent sense.
If the clause is ratified, it will mean that judgement and compensation will be determined by what actually happened rather than by what might have happened and whether or not everything practicable was done to have allayed incident.
I agree with you Alex, good news for the good, and good news for the bad.
However, one would hope that with the new FFI, the HSE can spend a reasonable amount of time examining the exact causation? rather than just focussing upon the employer.
Hopefully they can then pass on this cost to the supplier/manufacturer as applicable if proven to be at fault?
Remember, specialist inspectors generate even greater fees.
I was informed that to work properly, the knife should be just slightly less than the width of the blade, and is just slightly shorter than the blade.
This prevents snagging as the timber passes beyond the blade.
Had they used a non proprietary component fom an unaproved source?
I would consult the manufacturer if I were you?
Consider that:
1 Health and safety is the most common cause of death is post-industrial countries – including in England!
2 The cost of HS accidents in England is mostly paid by the state and workers
3 Despite the fact that the current English regulation imposes a strict liability to employers
I think that what the Conservatives are doing is disgusting and very detrimental for society as a whole!
I investigated an accident involving a circular saw. Operator didn’t use push-stick and his hand touched the blade. Fingers amputated. Cause of accident – failing to use a push stick. He was trained etc but at the engineering inspection it was found that there was a fault. The riving knife was thinner than the blade. So the operator won his claim for damages as the machine was not adequately guarded (strict liability). So even though the guarding was not a contributory factor he won his case.
An employer already has recourse to seek compensation from a 3rd party, eg to an equipment manufacturer. The employer remains vicariously liable as the statutory duty of care is on the employer (Donaghue v Stevenson). HSW Act S2(2) – It is the duty of the employer to ensure, ISFRP, the health, safety and welfare at work of employees. Aim is protect the weeker party. I agree, a totally retrograde step for employees to claim against manufactirers for workplace injuries
Interesting news piece especially:
“Employers can, for example, be held liable for damages when an injury is caused by equipment failure, even when a rigorous examination would not have revealed the defect. The new clause is designed to address that and other unfair consequences of the existing health and safety system.”
The result of ensuring employers who have taken all reasonable precautions cannot be sued for technical breach will “reduce the impression they are liable to law when not …
Great News, this has been a block on reputable companies being able to defend spurious claims for years. I’m guessing the SHP is funded by the Labour Party, judging by the way it reports these articles. Sort it out guys! You should be reporting these things without bias, not acting as a mouth-piece for the opposition.
Where is the evidence for the position taken by the government? None, other than the oft quoted ‘burden of regulations’ stifling the economy.
The UK is more lightly regulated than many of our competitors notably the US, Germany France, etc
Breach of statutory duty has a long and valuable history for injured workers and one also shouldn’t forget the Employers Liability [Defective Equipment ] Act. Strict liability is important-[read Munkman 11th Ed]
Well said Kirk!
This has been my impression for many months now. SHP is even more biased than the BBC!
And as for Diego’s comments – ‘Health and safety is the most common cause of death’? WHAT?
If that’s true its no wonder the Coalition (remember, the government is not a Tory one. Remember? ) is making changes.
Wake up and smell the coffee: Not everything on the internet is true, get over it and mae up your own minds instead of believing the hype from the mainstream media headlines.
Employer Liability claims have droped hugely over the last ten years. There is no compensation culture in EL insurance. Those dancing with delight at this worker vindictive clause could you please spell out the numbers of claims that are not justified. Please also quote your research sources and – for once – justify your statements.
Cheers.
Nigel
Maybe the author should research litigation claims that are based on this outrageous ‘strict liability’ requirement. Lawyers have quoted that they cannot defend outrageous claims e.g. someone tripping over a 10mm deflection – which is present in most premises – even a weather strip – because the strict liability of the Workplace Health Safety and Welfare Regulations basically require a “bowling green” surface. Even the HSE admit you cannot have zero risk so how can you have such strict liability
Machinery manufacturers already have a legal duty to produce safe equipment through CE certification. It does surprise me that HSE rarely takes action against the manufacturer where an end user is being prosecuted for an incident. Yes, the end user should complete a PUWER assessment, but inadequate guarding, poorly designed interlocks etc, unless used contrary to the instructions, should not ultimately be the responsibility of the end user.
excellent news, another big leap towards sensible safety, despite the posturing of certain jobsworth socialist MP`s. keep up the good work Mr Cameron please
The minute David Cameron suggested that protecting workers health and safety was a ‘burden to emplyers’ lost me I’m afraid. I will get out my very small violin. Protecting someones health and ensuring they can be safe whilst at work should be a duty (oh yes it is). What a load of nonsense, perhaps the government should concentrate more on the economy – oh maybe if they remove strict liability the economy will be blooming and business will flurish – I’m being sarcastic!