Ministers plan dramatic cut in health and safety inspections by councils The Government is to introduce a binding code on local authorities and the Health & Safety Executive that will exempt businesses such as shops, offices, pubs and clubs from regular health and safety inspections.
The Department for Business, Innovation & Skills said that in future, businesses would only face health and safety inspections if they were operating in higher risk areas such as construction and mining, if they had an incident or a track record of poor performance, or if there is a genuine complaint from an employee.
The code will be put out to consultation later this month. It is expected to come into force from April 2013.
Ministers will also introduce legislation in October that will mean businesses are only held liable for civil damages in health and safety cases if they can be shown to have acted negligently.
This new legislation will remove the part of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 that imposes civil liability for breaches of statutory duty in relation to health and safety regulations.
“This will end the current situation where businesses can automatically be liable for damages even if they were not actually negligent,” DBIS said.
The moves will coincide with plans to scrap or reform more than 3,000 regulations as part of the so-called Red Tape Challenge.
DBIS added that as a result of the Lofstedt report and the Red Tape Challenge, the Government had already announced plans to scrap or improve 85% of health and safety regulations.
It will also progress changes to tackle the perceived health and safety ‘compensation culture’ through its reforms to no-win, no-fee deals, and remove self-employed people from the health and safety regime where their work poses no harm to others.
Business Secretary Vince Cable said: "In these tough times, businesses need to focus all their energies on creating jobs and growth, not being tied up in unnecessary red tape. I've listened to those concerns and we're determined to put common sense back into areas like health and safety, which will reduce costs and fear of burdensome inspections."
The Government’s plans have been welcomed by business groups but heavily criticised by unions.
Alexander Ehmann, Head of Regulatory Policy at the Institute of Directors, said: “Removing the headache of health and safety inspections for low-risk businesses is a step change. Scrapping unnecessary and unpredictable inspections is a valuable piece of deregulation and the Government are to be congratulated for taking such bold and decisive action on behalf of Britain’s businesses.”
Katja Hall, Chief Policy Director at the Confederation of British Industry, said businesses would be encouraged by DBIS’ announcement.
“Given that half of firms say health and safety checks are a burden, and they are disproportionately costly for smaller firms, freeing low-risk businesses from tick-box inspections makes obvious sense,” she said. “Crucially, this will also focus inspectors’ time on the cases that really matter.”
But the TUC warned that the plans to abolish health and safety inspections for such a wide range of businesses could put the health of workers at risk.
General Secretary Brendan Barber said: “Contrary to myths peddled by ministers, the UK is facing an occupational health epidemic. Over 20,000 people die every year as a result of a disease they got through their work and a further 1.9m people are living with an illness caused by their work.
“Some of the 'low risk' workplaces identified by the government, such as shops, actually experience high levels of workplace injuries. This will only get worse if employers find it easier to ignore safety risks.”
Barber added: “This epidemic will only be stopped by ensuring that employers obey the law, and when every employer knows their workplace can be visited at any time.
“Health and safety regulation is not a burden on business, it is a basic protection for workers. Cutting back on regulation and inspections will lead to more injuries and deaths as result of poor safety at work.”
http://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/ ... Itemid=122
Login
Register
FAQ
