Unions put case for strong, simple safety regulation

TUC criticises Prime Minister for destroying ‘health and safety consensus’

The Trades Union Congress (TUC) has hit out at PM David Cameron who, in January 2012, announced a war “against the excessive health and safety culture that has become an albatross around the neck of British businesses” and that businesses had to “battle against a tide of risk assessment forms”.

The TUC has now published its own account of what the Government are doing with health and safety regulations and why strong simple regulations are needed. The full text is reproduced below.

TUC BRIEFING

The Government view on regulation

The government has said that any new regulation must be matched by the removal of another regulation. It calls this one-in one-out.

It also says that any new regulation introduced through Europe should be implemented in Britain at the lowest level possible, and any existing regulations should be reduced to the level of the new European regulation. In addition no regulations can impose any new ‘burdens’ on small businesses for the next 3 years.

They have also set up no less than three reviews of health and safety regulation in the past year and a half.

These are a review by Lord Young, a review by Professor Ragnar Lofstedt and what is called the ‘Red-tape challenge’.

The first two reviews have both concluded there was no case for any change in the overall health and safety framework and both accepted that there was not an ‘excessive’ health and safety culture.

The ‘red-tape challenge’ was set up in 2011to get businesses to suggest what regulations should be removed. Anyone could leave a suggestion on a website yet the overwhelming majority called for no change to the existing regulations.

What the evidence says

‘My overall conclusion is that there is no evidence for radically altering current health and safety legislation. This overwhelming view was expressed by a wide range of stakeholders including groups that represent employers. Furthermore there is evidence that work-related ill health and injury is itself a considerable burden on business (as well as a cost to society more generally) and that the regulatory regime offers vital protection to employees and the public.’

Professor Ragnar Lofstedt – launching his review of health and safety regulation.

The Government has also that we do not need any more regulation because Britain is one of the safest countries in the world. This is rubbish. According to the Health and Safety Risk Index, published in January 2010 the UK’s health and safety performance was 20th out of the 34 OECD (developed) nations.

Do we have too much regulation?

In 1974 the number of regulations on health and safety was 462. In April 2009 the number was 248. This means we have 46% less regulation than 35 years It is not just the number of regulations that have declined. Over the last five years the HSE has also reduced the number of forms used for collecting information from business from 127 to 54 – a 57.5% reduction.

Is regulation a burden on business?

Regulation should not be seen as a burden on business. It is a responsibility, just as paying taxes is a responsibility, and no business should be able to operate unless it can do so safety.
However there is no evidence that, despite all the complaints, health and safety regulations impose even a minimal hardship on businesses.

The Prime Minister said that businesses were doing ‘battle against a tide of risk assessment forms every year’. This is nonsense. The vast majority of employers never carry out any kind of written risk assessments, and for those that do, there is easy-tounderstand advice available from the Health and Safety Executive on how to do them.

According to research conducted by the Government in 2005 called the ‘Administrative Burdens measurement Exercise’ the average firm spends approximately 20 hours and just over £350 a year on the administrative costs of complying with the management Regulations(mainly risk assessment). Given this figure includes a considerable number of very large firms, it is clear that the normal cost for smaller companies will be considerably less.

Where the cost does lie is in failing to protect workers. The cost to employers of sickness absence caused by work has been estimated by the employers’ organisation, the CBI, to be £3.7 billion a year. That excludes the cost to insurers, the health service and central government….and to the workers themselves.

Does regulation work?

The answer is definitely yes. Since the Health and Safety at Work Act was introduced in 1974 there has been an 80% decrease in fatalities. Part of that is a result of changes in the workplace and changes to technology but the HSE estimates that around half is a result of health and safety legislation and enforcement.
A scientific study of the effectiveness of legislation on health and safety in the UK conducted in 2001 found that ‘Legislation and associated guidance is a major form of leverage over employers in terms of bringing about change in their health and safety policies and practices. Most employers are motivated to change their practices to comply with the law.’

Research in Europe has also found that regulation works. Much of Britain’s health and safety culture is based on European regulations. A study on the implementation of them showed that they ‘have widely contributed towards improved working conditions, boosting productivity, competitiveness and employment’. It showed there had been a considerable improvement in terms of health and safety protection and stated that the implementation and application of the EU legislation played a crucial role in bringing down the figures.

Do unions want more regulation?

The TUC wants simple effective regulation. It does not support regulation for the sake of it. Both employers and health and safety representatives need to be able to understand the law for it to work. We do not want laws that are too complex, which have no use, or which can’t be enforced.

Unions support a ‘common-sense’ approach to regulation. That is why we have supported the work that has been done by the HSE to remove old regulations and to simplify others. The TUC supported merging all the construction regulations together because that would be simpler than having three sets of regulations. We also supported merging the various asbestos regulations.

However we also want new regulation in areas where there is a clear need. Examples are a legal duty on directors to protect the health and safety of their workers, and a maximum temperature in the workplace.

What is being proposed?

The Government has told the HSE to get rid of half of all existing regulations by the end of the year. Many of those that have been ear-marked for deletion are no longer relevant and the HSE had already planned to remove them. Some however will have an effect on safety in the workplace.

Examples include changing the regulations on reporting injuries. Previously those that lead to an absence of more than three days had to be reported. From this year it will be more than seven days. This will mean that hundreds of thousands of injuries will no longer be reported and employers will be less likely to take action to prevent them.

The government also plans to remove large numbers of self-employed people from health and safety laws.

They say that this will only affect those who pose no risk to others but many self-employed people work in occupations where they put themselves at risk (such as farmers) and these people need the protection of health and safety regulation. In addition any move to remove protection from the self-employed will lead to more and more employers wrongly using bogus self-employment as a way of getting around their legal responsibilities.

Among the other regulations that the Government has said it will scrap are some of those dealing with falls from height and the requirement to register tower cranes.

What it means

The Governments attack on health and safety laws destroys the consensus that has existed around health and safety for the last 40 years. It will make it harder to get the laws we need in areas where there are new risks and could lead to Britain having some of the lowest levels of protection in Europe.

However what is also important is the message that the government is giving to employers. It is saying that the laws are unnecessary and do not matter. That health and safety is not important and there is no need for rules and regulations. That will mean that more and more workers will be put at risk, made ill and killed or injured at work.

It is also part of a wider attack on workers rights. The Government is also trying to make it easier for employers to dismiss workers by making it harder (and more expensive) to take an employer to an employment tribunal. In addition they are making it more difficult to get compensation if you are injured.

If you or a member of your family has been injured in an accident at work in the past three years, call our specialist personal injury solicitors on 0800 0384 384 or click here to book a free no obligation meeting.

Hidden dangers of working in an Agricultural Environment

The family of a man who died in a slurry pit accident near Ongar are seeking to raise awareness of the dangers of working in the agricultural sector.

Craig Whipps, 27, died in July following an incident at Albyns Farm, in Stapleford Tawney.

The accident occurred when Mr Whipps, from Denton in south Norfolk, was trying to dilute thick slurry from the cattle shed with more liquid slurry stored in a bulk tank.

A large volume of liquid slurry escaped under pressure, releasing toxic gases as it did so.

It is believed that Mr Whipps, who was living in Stapleford Abbotts at the time, drowned in the pit after being overcome by the fumes, although a coroner is yet to rule on the exact cause of death.

His colleague Paul Gray, 48, from Stapleford Tawney, also died while trying to help rescue Mr Whipps.

They want to try to raise awareness of some of the hidden dangers of working in an agricultural environment in the hope that the same thing will not happen to anyone else.

Statistics published by the Health and Safety Executive for the 12-month period to the end of March 2011 reveal that there were 42 fatalities in the agricultural sector in the UK.

This is well ahead of the 29 recorded in manufacturing and not far behind the 52 in construction.

The Health and Safety Executive has investigated and is making recommendations. However, it is clear that the potential dangers of slurry are underestimated in the agricultural community, in spite of the Health and Safety Executive's efforts to raise awareness.

If you or a member of your family has been injured in this accident or in similar circumstances in the past three years, call our specialist personal injury solicitors on 0800 0384 384 or click here to book a free no obligation meeting

Negligent workmen at Mango on Oxford Street, London

Kate Moss hoarding collapse on

Oxford Street

causes injuries

Four people were taken to hospital after an advertising board featuring supermodel Kate Moss collapsed on London's busiest shopping street.

The hoarding for fashion store Mango, on

Oxford Street

, fell at 16:15 GMT.

Three women and a man went to hospital, one with a suspected back injury, while others suffered minor injuries.

Part of the street was closed to traffic while emergency services attended.

Securing hoarding

A London Fire Brigade spokesman said: "Three fire engines, four fire rescue units and around 40 firefighters are at the scene. The police and London Ambulance Service are also at the scene.

Fortunately nobody was trapped but around four people are thought to have been injured.

Police carriers backed on to the hoarding to support it while efforts were made by workmen to secure it.

We understand that the Health and Safety Executive has been informed.

Mango are under a duty to ensure that the hoarding is secure and are likely to be liable for the injuries suffered to the innocent victims.

If you or a member of your family has been injured in this accident or in similar circumstances in the past three years, call our specialist personal injury solicitors on 0800 0384 384 or click here to book a free no obligation meeting

Prime Minister’s approach to health and safety not helpful, says Professor Lofstedt

The use of the word 'burden' to describe health and safety's impact on business is absolutely not mine, Professor Ragnar Lofstedt told delegates at the opening session of the IOSH 2012 conference on the 6^th March 2012.

The man who was tasked by the Government last year with carrying out a review of the UK health and safety system emphasised that his mandate was "clearly a deregulatory one" but his overall conclusions were that there is no need for a major overhaul of the system and that bad health and safety practice is already a considerable burden on business and society.

The professor deemed Prime Minister David Cameron’s recent branding of health and safety as a monster, and his overall approach to the subject, as "not helpful" but he acknowledged that the Prime Minister does agree, at least, that health and safety activity must be risk-based.

The professor provided a quick overview of how the review – which was published last November – was conducted and resulted in a total of 26 recommendations, all of which were accepted by the Government. Of those, he singled out a few on which to elaborate – particularly his recommendation to exempt the self-employed engaged in low-risk work from regulation. On this point more than any other, the professor explained, he was "bombarded" yet the changes he proposed were "nothing radical".

He said: "It is aimed at the likes of self-employed writers - for example, JK Rowling! - who are engaged in low-risk activities. Sectors like agriculture and construction will continue to be covered. And any bogus self-employed people in construction, for example, will never be exempt."

The professor was also very keen to emphasise that despite several reports to the contrary, he "never mentioned cuts in regulations of 50 per cent. I said consolidation of 30 per cent! The sheer number of regulations does make life difficult for business, so I looked at ways to reduce the number without reducing the level of protection - hence why the HSE is now looking at streamlining regulations in various sectors."

With regard to legislation emanating from the EU, the professor said the Government needs to work more closely with Europe, and place greater emphasis on risk. He revealed that the review of existing EU legislation to ensure it is risk and evidence-based would now likely start in 2015 rather than 2014, as originally planned, but he also announced that Conservative MEP Julie Girling is to set up an information committee on risk, due to be launched in September this year.

Professor Lofstedt also called on delegates and stakeholders to help him in lobbying the House of Lords to set up a Select Committee on risk to consider how to engage society in the wider debate on this subject.

He criticised certain sections of the media for their unhelpful reporting of health and safety and called on them to be more responsible and report on the benefits of a positive approach. He was also keen to emphasise that education is key to progress on the issue as a whole. He said: "We should have health and safety education in schools and universities. Risk communication is so important, even to young school children. And universities should focus on it, too - we don't need any more media studies or sports studies graduates!"

If you have any questions or queries about your safety at work following an accident, please contact Pannone on 08000 384 384.

Reforms oblige employers to report fewer workplace accidents

The number of workplace accidents that employers are obliged to report will reduce from April, following the introduction of reforms to health and safety laws.

From 6 April, under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) employers will only have to report workplace accidents to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) if a worker is incapacitated for more than seven days. At present, workers only have to be incapacitated for more than three days before employers are obliged to file a report.

The reforms will also extend the deadline for when employers have to file the report from 10 days to 15 days.

Employers are still required to keep a record of all over-three-day injuries. However, if the employer is obliged to keep an accident book, businesses with 10 or more staff, this record will be adequate. By law, records need to be kept for at least three years after an occupational accident or injury.

If you or a member of your family has been injured in an accident at work in the past three years, call our specialist personal injury solicitors on 0800 0384 384 or click here to book a free no obligation meeting

Man loses fingertips in work accident

A man has lost his fingertips following an accident at work at a manufacturing factory at Stoke on Trent.

His employer was prosecuted after a 41-year-old employee, who wishes to remain nameless, cut off the tip of his middle finger on a circular saw when trimming metal parts.

Following an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) it was found that the system of work used to operate the saw was unsafe. The top guard was incorrectly positioned and basic protection devices were not being used.

Further, the injured person had not received proper training in how to use the device. Also, the machine was faulty in so far as the emergency stop control button failed to work.

The employer pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £4,105 costs.

Manufacturing jobs accounted 21% of all fatalities and 15% of reported injuries.

If you or a member of your family has been injured in an accident at work in the past three years, call our specialist personal injury solicitors on 0800 0384 384 or click here to book a free no obligation meeting

Demolition worker fined after colleague was severely injured

A demolition worker has been taken to court after his actions left one of his colleagues with serious leg injuries.

The worker was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after the incident in January this year, when he was carrying out demolition work. He climbed into an excavator and began to move it around the site. However he was unable to control the machine and caused a wall to collapse. His co-worker was unable to move out of the way quickly enough and was trapped. He suffered serious injuries to his left leg, a broken right ankle and a shattered shin. He has had to have a steel plate inserted into his right shin and ankle.

The worker was not trained or authorised to operate this type of plant equipment and therefore should not have been driving the machine on the day of the incident.

Workplace transport is the second biggest cause of fatal accidents, and it is extremely fortunate that this incident didn't result in a death. Nationally around 80 people are killed every year, and there are more than 1,500 major injuries.

The fact that serious injury or death can result from the use of machinery and vehicles makes it all the more essential for employees to have respect for, and follow the safe working procedures for workplace transport that have been put in place by their employers.

Our specialised team here at Pannone work with a wide range of accident at work related cases.  If you or a member of your family has been injured in an accident at work, call our specialist personal injury solicitors on 0800 0384 384 or click here to book a free no obligation meeting.