The burden on businesses – particularly those recognised as low-risk – to comply with health and safety laws must be reduced and regulations made more industry-specific, according to a major employers’ group.
The British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) made the call as it revealed that 47 per cent of businesses it questioned as part of a recent survey identified health and safety “yellow tape”* as a burden.
In a new report, Health and safety: a risky business?, the BCC reveals that nearly a fifth (18 per cent) of sole traders identified health and safety regulation as a major barrier to recruiting their first employee.
Calculating the cumulative cost of health and safety regulation at more than £4 billion, the BCC report calls for:
Commenting on the report, the BCC’s director-general, David Frost, said: “Health and safety regulation in the workplace is important, but it must be made more industry-specific.
“The UK has a good record on health and safety and preventing accidents at work. However, employers are dealing with a multitude of regulations that do not necessarily add to the safety of workers. The Government’s Red Tape Challenge lists 131 separate health and safety regulations. The sheer volume of rules causes confusion for employers, particularly among smaller firms without the resource to tackle this.”
The report suggests that the amount of legislation that businesses deal with has led, in many cases, to a ‘tick-box’ attitude, which is in conflict with the principles of good health and safety legislation. Yet it also suggests that businesses can often be too cautious and over-compliant as a result of myths and scare stories surrounding the subject.
Abigail Morris, employment advisor at the BCC, explained: “A tick-box culture, in this context, means not properly modelling the risks and being too administration-focused instead of undertaking a proportionate assessment of the risks in the workplace.”
To reduce such over-caution and over-compliance, the BCC stressed the importance of the HSE’s “information function”, and urged the Government to ensure that “despite cuts to [the Executive’s] budget and restrictions on marketing spend, its business engagement and information activities are not diminished”. Earlier this month, the HSE announced it is to close its Infoline telephone service on 30 September, and instead enourage businesses and members of the public seeking information and official guidance on health and safety to visit its website.
The BCC report also identifies a disproportionate burden on employers from regulation that fails to distinguish between routine and occasional home-working, and low and high-risk workplaces.
The organisation points out that, in an effort to ease congestion in London, the Government is encouraging employers to allow for increased home-working during the Olympic Games next year. As such, it says ways to reduce the regulatory burden on employers to deal with the risks to home-workers, as well as better guidance on flexible working, should be investigated.
David Frost concluded: “Where regulation is irrelevant or misapplied, we are asking the Government to consolidate and simplify. We welcome the Government’s Löfstedt review into health and safety, and hope this will deliver for business.
“Only a straightforward and more proportionate system of health and safety regulation will make it easier for employers to comply, and allow them to focus on growing their businesses, driving employment and contributing to economic growth.”
* The BCC explained that “yellow tape” is a play on the term “red tape”!
Two comments here sum up the problem in my view.
“As long as we have a small minority of Gung Ho regulators and courts willing to support them, employers will feel they have to cover every single tiny risk.” and
“The problem is that many SHE professional lack work expereince and misinterpret regulation.”
Te problem is not with the regulations, it’s with those who over interpret and create reams of paperwork – often to justify their positions…
Nonsense.
Why?
Having one set of regs might make it look simpler but in practice (especially if you take the complexity of any ACOP that would have to accompany to new regs) anything produced would be so cumbersome as to be virtually unusable. The HSE are having enough trouble consolidating the Bioagents regs in to one document.
” to comply with health and safety laws must be reduced and regulations made more industry-specific”
Isn’t that where we were with the chaotic and grossly ineffective industry-specific legislation before 1974?
Why does no-one ever complain about the 200+ road traffice regulations? Shouldn’t they be made simpler? Oh – they are!
We have one main Highway Code, plus extra guidance for specialist areas such as HGV, vehicle manufacture or maintenance, highways etc. Hmm. Lots of red tape there, but not really noticed, because it’s fronted by one very simple (or it LOOKS simple!!) ACOP guide for all. Maybe we ARE missing a trick. And it would be a trick, because the first post got it bang on.
Maybe the BCC could encourage their local groups to consider offerring a service to their members by employing roving H&S Advisers who could visit these nervous sole traders and re-assure those who have nothing to fear, or otherwise suggest that not employing anyone else might be the safest option. if they are right about how simple H&S is for these firms it would cost very little to provide, if not perhaps they should shut up.
I love this statement ‘businesses recognised as low risk!’
I’ve never worked for a company who doesn’t think of themselves as ‘low-risk’! How do they come to that conclusion? – of course by doing a risk assessment. Then once they’ve done that where is the line? When everything they’ve assessed is ‘Low Risk’? When 25%, 50% of there activities are ‘Low risk’ .
Then who makes that decision?
Its the double standards I love! Its like us having to have insurance against something that MIGHT happen, its a bind, we all hate paying it – of course WE are never going to need to tighten up on H&S because WE are doing OK, but if WE injure ourselves because of another persons equally lax attitude to H&S, you can be sure that WE will do everything in our power to make them pay for it and all of a sudden H&S is our no.1 priority!!
Why can’t people see H&S doesn’t descriminate
I shudder to think if the choice of what is low risk is left to businesses to recognise, I’ve been to numerous companies who think of themselves as ‘low-risk’ without carrying out any risk assessment and don’t employee a safety advisor in any shape or form & lack even the basic level trained risk assessors. If Government is serious about Health & Safety & the effect of red tape on new business it could look at supporting business with new tax incentives so professional advice can be used by all
There is a wealth of legislation in other sectors that replicates the dutes under health & safety for non-employees – no wonder people think there is too much legislation! I agree this should be combined but mostly people are more scared of litigation and over compensate using health & safety legislation as a reason why not – come on lets not thrash the legislation but help folk understand the basic needs of H&S legislation and how easy it really is.
When we had industry specific legislation (remember the offices, shops and factories act?) it was said to be too complex! While I do think some of the current legislation is badly written and could be simplified, the main problem is one of information and enforcement. As long as we have a small minority of Gung Ho regulators and courts willing to support them, employers will feel they have to cover every single tiny risk. The same applies with civil claims.
Agree that there is nothing wrong with existing legislation. Just a tad frustrated that we dumb down standards to the lowst common cowboy hire and fire mentality. UK plc used to believe in doing a job properly, why have we changed?
I agree, Regulation should be consolidated and reduced into one simple rule.
Perhaps along the lines of ensuring so far as is reasonably practical the health, safety and welfare at work of employees and those not employed who can be affected by the business. Also, an employee should take reasonable care of themselves and other persons who could be affected by their acts and omissions?
Maybe we could base it on a universal Ethic of Reciprocity.
…But isn’t that what we have already?
Are we now issuing press release on behalf of government/CBI/BCC?
Where is the IOSH comment on this? Are we becoming as toothless as the HSE?
Please can IOSH provide a detailed response to the myth that red tape is somehow “holding back” real businesses from moving forward, tie this to the REAL figures on deaths/injuries at work and as a result of work.
We are and should remain independant and comment as such to show the “real” poor picture of H&S in the UK
All our H&S regulations are risk based so you can at the moment “tailor” your approach to that of the risk level in your workplace.
Perhaps the BCC need to be reminded that health and safety in the workplace is mandatory and is a civil right established by Magna Carta. When will the Government start making it clear that safety costs have to be planned for and when are business start up advisers going to start telling new entrepreneurs that if you can’t afford to be safe don’t think of starting at all.
of course H&S is a burden. so are speed limits minimum wage etc. and as a boss I could make so much more profit without them.so lets get rid of H&S minimum wage, safe roads etc……hang on a minute now we’re like a victorian or third world society. Must go I’ve got to shove a 6yr old up the chimney to clean it!”
Totally disagree its often the case of common sense being applied and iof anybody can take me to a workplace where common sense is being applied because most people dont understand what they should be doing to comply with regulations
If you take a pragmatic approach to the current Regulations the cost is usually a little bit of your time for low risk industries. The trouble is people like to complicate the issue. A risk assessmet is where you identify significant hazards with potential to cause harm, not the risk of a paper cut from a memo.
As far as making legislation specific, look at the 137 regulations, most are for specific industries or high risk activities.
“The self-employed to be exempt from certain health and safety legislation, as recommended by the 2006 Davidson review”. So which particular health and safety legislation would a self employed roofer be exempt from?
And the BCC has revealed that “nearly a fifth of sole traders identified health and safety regulation as a major barrier to recruiting their first employee”; so why is this the case? Because they most probably don’t care or don’t understand what is all about.
Reality check required
Show me the man or woman who can make regulations ‘easier to comply with’ and I will doff the neb of my cap. If they can make the law simpler, I will throw my cap up in the air too!
‘Industry-specific regulations’ sound like a recipe for more not less regulation. I agree with Redken that it’s possible to tailor current legislation, which provides a framework in which businesses can operate responsibly and workers are safe, healthy and productive.
I agree with most of the comments, but then I would – I’m a h&s practitioner. Similarly, employers’ representatives take the side of their members – that’s their job. Is there some middle ground here?
I believe that some h&s legislation has become too prescriptive and onerous. I don’t mind admitting that it is difficult to fully comply with all legislation. The legislation itself is often poorly drafted and worded. Using plain English would be helpful in the first instance.
There is nothing wrong with current regulation, bearing in mind that it is only a point from which to start. The problem is that many SHE professional lack work expereince and misinterpret regulation. It should be compulsory for every SHE professional to have ten years sector experience at a supervisory/management level before studying for a qualification. It’s time to start being honest with ourselves.
The legislation we have in the UK is fine and not dissimilar to many other countries . What counts is the way it is enforced and the level of liability applied to health and safety professionals who get it wrong. This fear of prosecution leads to the development of an h&s management style which is contrary to the approach of “reasonably practicable”. if personal perception and interpretation are what separates us , one thing that makes all h&s professionals so alike will be fear!!
I think Yossarian was being sarcastic? We do have one set of rules, known as the HASAWA, amazing! I’d like to see the person who could come up with guidance suitable and sufficient for every type of business – oh hang on isn’t that an ACoP and then guidance and even industry specific guidance. I will tell you what I think is holding a sole trader back from taking on another employee – brains!! How on earth do they manage with diversity and equality, I suspect that is also a burden.