Neil Howe, senior legal author and auditor, Cedrec
As part of the Deregulation Bill, the government plans to scrap rules for self-employed in low risk occupations. These will formally exempt 800,000 people from safety regulation and claims the government will save businesses hundreds of thousands of pounds a year in compliance costs.
The move will be driven by a change to a section of the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974, which places the requirements on self-employed people to ensure they protect others from harm or danger in the workplace.
There has been a lot of criticism of the change, particularly from trade unions who have voiced concerns over a lack of clarity.
Any change in rules could lead to confusion between contractors, ultimately placing people at unnecessary risk.
Generally speaking, the average rate of fatal injuries at work drops year on year. The provisional HSE figures for 2012-2013 show 148 fatalities in main industry – agriculture, manufacturing, construction etc – but of those, 49 were self-employed.
This sector has a much higher fatal injury rate than for employees, with 1.1 deaths per 100,000 compared to 0.4.
So any plan to exempt self-employed workers from their health and safety requirements is disappointing, and can only result in confusion and complications — the very things the Deregulation Bill is supposed to be removing.
Those who do not pose a risk to others will never be subject to health and safety legislation. As it stands now, the self-employed are required by the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 to make sure they protect others from harm resulting from their work activities.
It’s a requirement that is clear and works well. All self-employed are covered, so there is no confusion.
The Health and Safety at Work Act can only be used if someone puts someone else at risk. If they injure another person through their work, then the Act will apply.
Therefore, the proposed changes seem completely unnecessary. Any change in rules could potentially cause confusion between contractors and put self-employed workers, fellow workers and the public at risk.
Regardless of the draft Bill, everyone who is self-employed will still have to carry out a risk assessment to see if their work puts others at risk.
What will change is that self-employed people will be unsure if they are covered or exempt. People who clearly pose a danger to others will think they have nothing to worry about and won’t have to take safety precautions. There is also a risk of self-employed people who employ others believing that they are exempt from the law.
The Deregulation Bill will be the main subject of the BIg Debate at the IOSH Conference 2014. The conference takes place between 17-18 June, alongside Safety and Health Expo, at ExCeL London
I agree with the sentiments of this piece but am a little confused on what the author is telling us about the current position. In particular, the statement that “The Health and Safety at Work Act can only be used if someone puts someone else at risk” is simply wrong. Both the self-employed and employees currently have duties under the Act to ensure the health and safety of themselves as well as others. Have I misunderstood what the author is trying to say here? As a self-employed person who works entirely on my own most of the time, the proposed… Read more »
Completely agree with the comments above. This is about the Government being able to claim they have saved businesses thousands of pounds. In reality it will make little difference to most and confuse some. I can’t see it being used as a defence in civil claims as the points to prove in cases such as negligence will remain the same. However, it is another potential cause for confusion.
Since the enactment of HASAWA in 1975 I believe that this enabling act has stood the test of time and to interfere with section 3 would be a serious error. People often believe what they want to and that will in my opinion lead to a large section of the self-employed to feel that they are exempt. There will not be many self-employed who could prove that they had assessed that their undertaking could not expose others to risks to their health and safety. Sat at home and writing books should not affect others, watering plants initially seems very low… Read more »
Agree with the sentiment of the above posts, the Bill appears only to obfuscate the otherwise crystal clear meaning and aims of “The Act”. Whether or not the Bill would be capable of being a defence in a civil claim, or indeed whether it serves any real purpose other than to justify its existence or “take one’s eye” off the real purpose of engagement in health and safety is unclear from what we know so far-as mentioned, it may serve to make the self employed unemployable on large contract undertakings. The self emplored include those engaed in many hazardous tasks… Read more »
This is about the Govt claiming to have got rid of “unnecessary” Regulation and nothing to do with improving H&S