Löfstedt Report
Reclaiming health and safety for all:
An independent review of health and safety legislation
Professor Löfstedt published his report on Health & Safety on 28th November and the Government published their response on the same day. No flies on Mr Cameron, then! Basically, the government has accepted the recommendations and intends to have them all in operation by 2014.
Interestingly, the basic premise of the Löfstedt Report is there is nothing wrong with current law, the normal enforcement procedures or the advice given by qualified H&S Specialists! There are a few improvement tweaks possible for both legislation and enforcement but the main areas needing attention are the EU (encourage them to develop more sensible laws) and Civil Law (breaking the linkage whereby any trivial breach of H&S documentation is considered to be evidence of negligence under Civil Law).
“I have concluded that, in general, there is no case for radically altering current health and safety legislation. The regulations place responsibilities primarily on those who create the risks, recognising that they are best placed to decide how to control them and allowing them to do so in a proportionate manner. There is a view across the board that the existing regulatory requirements are broadly right, and that regulation has a role to play in preventing injury and ill health in the workplace. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that proportionate risk management can make good business sense.
Meanwhile, there are instances where regulations designed to address real risks are being extended to cover trivial ones, whilst the requirement to carry out a risk assessment has turned into a bureaucratic nightmare for some businesses. The legal requirement to carry out a risk assessment is an important part of a risk management process but instead businesses are producing or paying for lengthy documents covering every conceivable risk, sometimes at the expense of controlling the significant risks in their workplace. “
Civil Law. Professor Löfstedt voices concern that work to simplify the health and safety system will be ineffective if businesses continue to over-comply with health and safety regulation due to fear of civil litigation. Employers are being advised to keep large numbers of records in case they are taken to court and there is evidence that the standard disclosure lists are being applied inappropriately with civil claims not being defended if all the statutory paperwork is not in place. “It is worth noting that the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Protocols makes it clear that a technical approach should not be taken and that minor non-compliance should not be viewed too strictly.”
Self-Employed. One rather bizarre recommendation is that the the self-employed should be exempt from H&S requirements where there is “no potential risk of harm to others.” So the people that are already exempt from putting their policies in writing and never get checked by an enforcement officer will no longer have to even think about their own safety – is that really a major improvement?
Local Authority Enforcement. At present HSE monitor and advise local authorities about H&S enforcement but cannot give direct instruction. While keeping local authorities as a H&S enforcement agency it is proposed to put them under the control of HSE. ”Give HSE the authority to direct all local authority health and safety inspection and enforcement activity, in order to ensure that it is consistent and targeted towards the most risky workplaces. This will provide greater assurance and consistency for businesses.” However, Prof. Löfstedt was quite explicit that the actual enforcement role should remain with local authorities to take advantage of their local knowledge and to ensure compatibility with their food safety and environmental enforcement roles.
Changes to the Law. The following legislation is to be revoked:-
- The Celluloid and Cinematograph Film Act 1922
- The Construction (Head Protection) Regulations 1989
- The Notification of Tower Cranes Regulations 2010
The following regulations should be amended, clarified or reviewed:
- The Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981
- Electricity at Work Regulations 1989
- The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR)
- The Work at Height Regulations 2005
- The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007
And the final word from Professor Löfstedt,
“there is also a need to stimulate a debate about risk in society to ensure that everyone has a much better understanding of risk and its management.”
DIY home owner banned from own home
The Housing Health & Safety Rating Scheme actually allows for temporary non-compliance with safety standards during repairs and renovations. However, one householder’s ideas of improvements left much to be desired. He managed to destroy the damp proof course allowing the property to become extremely damp, built his own staircase from wooden crates tied together with string and replaced internal walls with single skin insulation board walls. There was no fixed means of heating or lighting in the premises and no hot water to the bathroom. The loft had been converted to a bedroom with a ceiling height of one metre! Failure to comply with a Prohibition Order recently resulted in a fine of £910 with £622 costs.
Environmental Health News, November 2011
Recent cases
£5,000 fine and £1.500 costs for the company that modified a machine guard so it was easier to carry out basic maintenance while the machine was operating. A 20 year old employee trying to remove an obstruction was pulled into the waste-screening machine and needed to have his arm amputated. As well as fitting a proper guard the company have also modified other plant so that the injured employee could return to his old job.
An engineer gave himself permission to enter a silo and incorrectly certified that power had been isolated. He slipped and was drawn into an auger which chewed up both legs; fortunately, he was able to phone a colleague who switched off the power and arranged his rescue (although one leg was subsequently amputated). For inadequate managerial control and not supervising their own company procedures the company was fined £8,000.
£100,000 fine and £44,000 costs for the the company that had not realised the interlock guards around a 2,500 tonne press only cut off the electricity supply but allowed pneumatic power to continue. A worker entered the danger area to clear a jam and was crushed to death.
£200,000 fine and £172,000 costs for the company that had an employee blown through the factory wall to land on the road 30 feet below (he was pronounced dead at the scene). A mixture of cement dust and steam had resulted in an explosive atmosphere inside a processing machine. Amazingly, the company were aware of the risk but had failed to install pressure relief vents – even though an earlier explosion had injured another worker!
Safety & Health Practitioner, November 2011