Health and safety regulators facing deep cuts
Howard Fidderman looks at the ongoing implementation of the Young report and the effects of cuts in the safety regulators' budgets.
On this page:
Impact of the Comprehensive Spending Review
"Fee for fault" principle
Extending the major hazards approach
Charging for health and safety advice
Cuts in staff and regulatory functions
Box 1: "Administrative" limits
Implementing Lord Young's recommendations
Consultants register
RIDDOR reforms
SMEs and "low risk" workplaces
Outstanding regulatory issues
HSE strategy
Box 2: MPs' recommendations
Table 1: Progress on implementing Lord Young's recommendations.
Within the space of one week in October 2010, the Government made three separate announcements that will shape the future of workplace health and safety in the UK over the course of at least the next four years. First, it accepted all the recommendations of Lord Young's review of health and safety and the alleged "compensation culture", Common sense Common safety (PDF format, 685K) (on the Number 10 website); and then it announced cuts of 35% in the grant it gives to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and 28% in its funding of local authorities (LAs). In this article, we provide an overview of the ongoing and interlinked implementation of the recommendations of the Young review and the early effects of, and response to, the budget cuts. In the coming months, we will explore some of the issues in more depth.
Impact of the Comprehensive Spending Review
The HSE currently operates on an annual budget of £330 million (including income from the Health and Safety Laboratory), of which £230 million comes from central government, and around £100 million from charging. Responding to the Chancellor's Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR), the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) decided the HSE would have to save 35% of its "dependence on public funding over four years". This means that by 2014/15, the cash the HSE receives from the Government will be between £80 million and £85 million less each year. In a December 2010 speech to a House Magazine conference, "Health and safety after the Young Review" (on the HSE website), HSE chair Judith Hackitt insisted that the HSE was not being treated "more harshly than anyone else" within the DWP.
The problem for the HSE, however, is that it has long made efficiency savings, most recently with the merging of its London and Bootle HQs into a single operation on Merseyside, as well as the consolidation of some of its premises around the UK, even though these have resulted in the loss of hundreds of its London-based policy staff as well as support and administrative workers. The scope for additional administrative savings is limited (see box 1) and past prudence means the potential for further efficiencies is also limited and will not restore the operating deficit.
Announcing the 35% cut, the DWP told the HSE that it would have to "share more of the cost with those businesses who create risks, while reducing burdens on low-risk businesses". Ministers, Hackitt told her audience, had "encouraged" the HSE to look at alternatives to government funding, and she took the opportunity of the speech to outline the "early stages of development" of the regulator's current thinking. When HSB asked the HSE in mid-February what progress it had made on its thinking, we were told: "Our position remains as Judith [Hackitt] talked about in her speech, there's nothing else to add at this stage."
"Fee for fault" principle
The HSE, said Hackitt, is "working on a proposal to charge those who create risks". The "fee for fault" principle envisages that "those who are found not to be compliant with the law during an inspection should be charged for the work that HSE does following the issuing of a notice or other requirement for action to rectify the fault." Such an approach, argues Hackitt, "is fair and equitable and will be welcomed by the vast majority of businesses who are compliant and who see those who take short cuts as getting away with an unfair competitive advantage. Such an approach should be seen by business as a way of levelling the playing field. We do recognise that there will need to be safeguards built in to the process to ensure that such a scheme is transparent and open to scrutiny."
The proposal would seem to enjoy support from the All-party Group on Occupational Safety and Health. In a December 2010 report on the implications of the spending cuts on the HSE (PDF format, 69K) (on the Prospect website), the MPs state: "Consideration should be given to charging for activities which take place as a result of wrongdoing, such as where an inspection leads to enforcement action or a requirement to take remedial action and, as a result, the inspector must return to the workplace to ensure that the problem has been rectified." The group cautions, however, that such charging "needs to be carefully monitored to make sure it does not mean that inspectors increase the number of visits required to rectify a problem, or target only premises where there is a known incident with a view to maximising revenue". In this sense, they believe it is important that the current ratio of proactive inspections (60%) to reactive visits (40%) is maintained.
Extending the major hazards approach
The HSE is also considering extending the recovery of its costs beyond the permissioning regimes of the major hazards industries to "businesses with comparable regulatory oversight". Hackitt points out that "in major hazards, on and offshore, and the nuclear industry - approximately a third of our work - we recover all of our costs, so government funding currently represents two-thirds of HSE's budget."
The all-party group would "support an extension of charging so charges were based on risk rather than on historical precedent". It "broadly supports extending charging to all permissioning and licensing activities to ensure that the full cost is recovered, either on a case-by-case basis or a levy on the industry, and to consider where a similar level of HSE advice is provided at comparable risk levels to ensure some consistency". It also highlights some anomalies in the current charging system - for example, "the National Grid is charged for gas but not for equally hazardous electricity. In the case of utilities, this safety levy could be collected by suppliers and paid directly to the HSE."
In addition, "charges can only fund regulation and overheads that relate to those charges. At the same time as spending on hazardous industries, such as the nuclear industry, is likely to increase to reflect the need for effective regulation, HSE activity elsewhere would fall even in industries such as construction, which have a high level of inherent risk."
The MPs' group emphasises that it opposes "an extension of charging for general inspections. This would undermine the relationship between an employer and the inspectorate, which is currently generally positive". It would, however, "support a levy on higher-risk activities to meet the costs of providing HSE regulation and advice".
Even with additional charging, the MPs conclude, "there are limits to what can be raised this way" and although it is "unclear" how much revenue could be raised from a full extension of the permissioning regime, the group believes "it is unlikely to be anywhere near the amount required as a result of the government cuts, and will, in itself, introduce new costs for collection." It also fears that there are "dangers that it could alter the way the HSE operates, so any move to charging needs careful management and consultation with both sides of industry".
Charging for health and safety advice
Hackitt also mooted two areas where the HSE might charge for the provision of advice. Noting that the HSE provides a considerable amount of non-statutory advice to business and that while it regards "some of that" as an important part of its regulatory role "in helping businesses to understand what is required and what good practice looks like, it is nonetheless considering where and how [it] might charge businesses that use [its] staff and resources for advice and consultation on their health and safety systems".
Similarly, Hackitt believes the HSE should recover the costs of its providing advice on land-use planning matters. The "principal beneficiaries", she points out, are after all "developers who propose to build in the vicinity of major hazards installations" and they should pay for the HSE's "considerable amount of knowledge".
The MPs accept that there may be other such activities for which the HSE may wish to consider charging, but warns that "none of these is likely to lead to significant increases in revenue and there is a danger that the cost of maintaining the [charging] regime may lead to most of the income being spent on collection charges." The group therefore "recommends that any charging regime remains administratively simple to avoid excessive bureaucracy and to ensure that charges are spent on safety".
The group opposes, however, any further charging for advice or guidance, except for the increasing use of the guidance overseas, although how this would be implemented given the free availability online of the regulator's guidance is not clear.
Cuts in staff and regulatory functions
The limited recoupment potential from charging is compounded by the limited scope for further administrative and efficiency savings, which will necessitate, say the MPs, cuts in staff and regulatory functions because the bulk of the HSE's budget is spent on payroll, around half on inspectors. The MPs note that the previous Labour Government "recognised that a minimum number of inspectors was required and instructed the HSE to maintain frontline inspector numbers at or above 1,283. Current numbers are only just above that level." They add, however, that "these inspectors could not operate without administrative and other support, and any cut in these services would reduce the effectiveness of the inspectorate."
"There is significant evidence," say the MPs, "that inspection activity influences behaviour by employers … This means that any reduction in enforcement activity would be likely to lead to an increase in injury rates. This is at a time when Britain is likely to be coming out of a recession and injury rates traditionally rise as more employers take on new staff and there is a growth in manufacturing and construction." This, say the MPs, would "lead to a much higher cost to the Government as a result of increased benefit claims from those on long-term sickness and higher NHS costs".
The all-party group also points out that the best results are secured by a combination of interdependent interventions: "Changing behaviour and reducing injury and illness rates is best achieved by a mixture of enforcement, support, guidance, advice and information. If any one of these is reduced it is likely to reduce the effectiveness of the others. As the effect of research, campaigns, guidance and information, especially those on occupation health issues, is often seen only over a longer period of time, there may be a tendency to cut these as a short-term measure. The all-party group believes that this would have considerable implications for the British economy and British industry."
Box 1: "Administrative" limits The All-party Group on Occupational Safety and Health takes issue with the Government's claim that the HSE can offset much of the cut in its grant through administrative savings, stating that "it is unclear how the HSE will be able to achieve significant savings without reducing its ability to operate as a regulator". The group cites the views of the three unions that represent HSE staff - Prospect, FDA and PCS - that the cuts could result in the loss of 750 posts. Even if frontline posts were protected, argue the MPs, "the time spent on inspection would drop significantly as inspectors were diverted into performing more administrative tasks". The MPs note that "many of the very high expenditure areas … cannot be altered". These include private finance initiative costs of £29 million. Accommodation costs also involve a "considerable expenditure", although the MPs point out that the HSE has reduced these in recent years, notably with the closure of its London headquarters, and that all properties are reviewed every five years or when there is a lease-break. This is "commended" by the MPs, who nonetheless are "concerned about the effect on both staff and industry of reducing the HSE's regional presence. In addition, accelerating this programme and closing offices where there is still a valid lease and there is little chance of subletting to another tenant would be a false economy." |
Implementing Lord Young's recommendations
In the remainder of this feature, we look at the progress that the HSE and other government departments have made in implementing Lord Young's recommendations. We have previously discussed the flaws in Young's reasoning and recommendations, so will not revisit them here. Despite Young's resignation from the position of David Cameron's health and safety adviser just 35 days after he published his report, work on the implementation of the recommendations has, for the most part, met his demanding timetable (see table 1):
- the HSE has implemented - broadly on time - seven of the nine recommendations that it was either fully or partly responsible for implementing at various points between 15 October 2010 and 28 February 2011;
- of the six recommendations that the HSE is responsible for implementing from March onwards, the HSE would not provide HSB with progress details on five, although it insists it is working on them. Four of these recommendations were actually due for implementation in March; and
- other government departments have implemented seven of the 10 recommendations that they were responsible for introducing by the end of February, and are at various stages with the five recommendations that require implementation between March 2011 and April 2012.
Consultants register
The most eye-catching development to date is the voluntary Occupational Safety and Health Consultants Register (OSHCR) (external website), which opened for applications on 31 January, with employers able to use the register from 4 April. The main aim of the register is to ensure that employers receive appropriate and proportionate advice, and that they will also know where to go for the advice.
The register is open to individuals who:
- provide commercial advice on general health and safety management issues;
- have achieved a specified status in one of six professional bodies;
- can demonstrate adequate continuing professional development;
- abide by their professional body's code of conduct;
- provide sensible and proportionate advice; and
- have professional indemnity insurance or equivalent to cover the nature of their duties.
The HSE hopes the register, which will be run by a not-for-profit company representing the six professional bodies that developed the scheme, will "become a new benchmark for standards in the profession". The six bodies will handle any complaints; a decision to withdraw membership status will mean a consultant is no longer eligible to appear on the register. The HSE will continue to support the professional bodies as the register starts up, mainly through the provision of administrative support, but it will not be "directly involved".
RIDDOR reforms
The HSE is consulting until 9 May (PDF format, 931K) (external website) on Young's recommendation to amend the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR) to replace the duty on employers to report "over-three-day" injuries with one to report "over-seven-day" injuries. The HSE has, however, delayed action on Young's more important recommendation that it "re-examine the operation of RIDDOR to determine whether this is the best approach to providing an accurate national picture of workplace accidents". Although Young had timetabled this review for January, the HSE has instead decided "to evaluate the impact of the over-three-days to over-seven-days change before beginning work to address" the second recommendation. The HSE told HSB that it had kept ministers informed of its plans and that it did not want the over-seven-day reform "delayed by the wider consideration". Even so, as we note in our feature on RIDDOR, the current consultation feels like a half-hearted affair.
SMEs and "low risk" workplaces
One of Young's main themes was to reduce the "burdens" for so-called "low-risk" workplaces and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The HSE managed to implement one of Young's recommendations on the same day he published his report - a 20-minute risk assessment tool for offices (external website). It has followed this up with three further trials of similar tools for classrooms, retailers and charity shops (external websites). The last of the trials ended on 16 March and the HSE is currently evaluating the responses.
The tool prompts employers to answer "straightforward questions" that generate a risk assessment and action plan. The HSE believes that the tools will help employers focus on "relevant" hazards and appropriate controls, and avoid "unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy". At the same time, HSE and LA "safety officials", says the HSE, "will take account of the results of the assessments when they carry out inspections".
It is important to note that the tools are an extension of the work the HSE has been doing in recent years to simplify risk assessments, most notably the online model assessments for 34 specific workplaces and tasks, although Judith Hackitt points out that the new tools go "further in helping employers actually do the assessment". In her House Magazine speech, she similarly implied that the HSE was some way ahead of Young when it said in its 2009 strategy, Health and safety in Great Britain in the 21st century, that it "wanted to build confidence and competence so that people in business can make sensible decisions themselves on what matters and what is trivial and can be ignored".
Young also recommended that the HSE produce by June clear, separate guidance under a code of practice for SMEs engaged in lower-risk activities. Although the HSE would not provide HSB with any information on its work on this recommendation, Hackitt told the House Magazine conference the HSE was "committed to producing" this guidance, which "naturally flows on from the work we have done on simple risk assessments as well". She said the HSE would review the guidance that it previously published and seek to simplify it. She added that guidance was "an area where companies can come together under the umbrella of their trade bodies to produce industry-specific guidance that may be better suited to business needs … where HSE can move into a supporting rather than a leading role in the production of guidance".
Outstanding regulatory issues
The HSE is unwilling to be specific about the progress it is making on recommendations due for implementation from March onwards. All a spokesperson would say to HSB is: "We are making progress in delivering the recommendations in the Young report for which HSE is responsible … Work is ongoing and more details will be issued as and when each project completes."
The issues that are particularly interesting here are launches of:
- consultation on consolidating the "raft" of health and safety legislation into a single set of accessible Regulations, which Young wanted to see in March;
- periodic checklists for use by low-risk voluntary organisations to check compliance against Regulations, again timetabled for March;
- consultation on implementing an improved system for assessing health and safety standards for larger companies with multiple outlets. The HSE points out that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) is the lead department. BIS, however, was also unable to shed any light on implementation plans, even though it was required by "early 2011"; and
- the presentation to the board of the Food Standards Agency of proposals for opening delivery of food-safety inspections to accredited certification bodies. Of all Young's proposals, this could eventually prove the most serious for workplace health and safety: while seemingly innocuous in itself, it needs to be seen against the recent statement on combined food and health and safety inspections (see table 1), the register of safety consultants and the Government's desire to reduce inspections of "low-risk" premises. It is not hard to envisage from these developments that, some years down the line, accredited third-party bodies and personnel could replace regular HSE and LA inspections of Young's "low-risk" premises.
HSE strategy
In her House Magazine speech, Hackitt said that when consulting on its draft strategy back in 2008, the HSE had been mindful that the final strategy would need to "remain relevant even if circumstances and situations changed". Looked at in the light of Young's report and the CSR, she remained confident that the strategy "remains broadly relevant and appropriate". Not only that, but the HSE has "found that the strategy has offered a very sound framework to adopt Lord Young's recommendations and to meet the requirements placed on us in HSE and on our LA partners as a result of the spending review".
Hackitt's immediate explanation appeared to be that "the supporting strap line in [the] strategy was an invitation to everyone who is part of the health and safety system to 'be part of the solution'." And Young "has reinforced that message … Not just in terms of improving the health and safety system but in helping to draw the distinction between real health and safety risks, which threaten serious harm to people in the workplace, and the other types of risk-averse behaviour that people mistake for health and safety but in reality is much more to do with a compensation culture or mentality." In short, the HSE was committed to "work energetically" on the review's implementation.
Although Hackitt did not say so, her attitude may in part reflect the Government's announcement that it would not replace Young with a new safety "champion". This may just allow the HSE to ameliorate and delay the less palatable or desirable of Young's recommendations, for example combining all safety Regulations into a single statute. Lord Freud, an under-secretary of state at the Department for Work and Pensions, insists, however, that "the fact that these recommendations are now embedded reduces that need significantly. A small number of the recommendations do not fit neatly into a single government department's purview and the review implementation team is currently working with the relevant government departments to ensure that these recommendations also are taken forward." And although they have made no parliamentary progress as yet, a dozen private member's Bills are sitting before the House of Commons awaiting second readings should the Government conclude a legislative impetus is needed for Young's reforms.
Hackitt's apparent optimism is likely to be severely tested over the coming months. The all-party group, for example, is clear that meeting the cut in grant "cannot be achieved by administrative savings and increased charging alone, which will leave the remainder to be met through cuts to the service it provides". At the same time, it "believes that cuts in prevention are a false economy and any reduction in HSE activities will lead to increased costs from sickness absence, compensation and benefit costs". Further, reduced expenditure on prevention "does not fit with the Government's stated intention of reducing the number of people on benefits - in particular, incapacity benefit".
Box 2: MPs' recommendations As well as asking that the level of HSE funding be increased to meet the challenges that it will face in the period when Britain emerges from the recession, the All-party Group on Occupational Safety and Health recommends that:
|
Table 1: Progress on implementing Lord Young's recommendations |
|||
Target date |
Initiative |
Topic/Department |
Progress |
Autumn 2010 |
Launch of Ministry of Justice's consultation on Lord Justice Jackson's recommendations relating to reform of civil litigation |
Compensation culture Ministry of Justice (MoJ) |
The MoJ consultation ran between 15 November 2010 and 14 February 2011, and the MoJ will respond to the submissions in the spring. The MoJ proposals seek to reduce the cost of litigation in personal injury cases: in particular, the MoJ wants to reform "no win, no fee" conditional fee arrangements and "damage-based agreements" or "contingency fees". The consultation paper does not cover the payment of referral fees to claims management companies, which were recommended by Young and Jackson LJ (see below). MoJ (2010), Proposals for reform of civil litigation funding and costs in England and Wales. Implementation of Lord Justice Jackson's recommendations (PDF format, 470K) (external website), CP 13/10. |
Autumn 2010 |
Publication of snow-clearing guidance |
Compensation culture Transport (DT) |
The DT announced publication of the guidance on 22 October 2010. DT (2010), Clearing snow and ice from pavements yourself (external website). |
October 2010 |
Launch of simplified interactive risk assessment form for offices |
Low-hazard workplaces HSE |
Consultation on the HSE's online risk assessment tool for offices ran between 15 October 2010 and 7 January 2011. HSE (2010), Office risk assessment (external website). |
October 2010 |
Roll-out of national Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (on the Food Standards Agency website) by local authorities Launch of web-based database for local authorities to publish results of Food Hygiene Rating Scheme inspections |
Combining food safety and health and safety inspections Food Standards Agency (FSA) |
The FSA launched the scheme in England, Wales and Northern Ireland on 30 November 2010. Local authorities (LAs) are running the scheme in partnership with the FSA. As at 14 February 2011, the scheme database listed 28 LAs in England, one in Northern Ireland and 18 in Wales. The FSA anticipates that, by June 2011, "at least 171 authorities will be operating the scheme". The database also shows that all 16 LAs in Scotland are running the similar Food Hygiene Information Scheme rather than different schemes. A separate recommendation requires a review of the new scheme in April 2012. |
October 2010 |
Highlighting the existing jurisdiction of the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) should there be an event cancellation by local authority officials |
- LGO |
The LGO reports that following discussions with Lord Young, he agreed that the LGO could accommodate the recommendations within the existing legal framework. The LGO has completed all the internal procedural changes to accommodate the recommendation. It is extending its existing "fast-track" procedure - which covers issues such as homelessness - to health and safety. The effects of the CSR, however, mean that it will rely on third parties to publicise the availability of the procedure. It will also, if necessary, disseminate through special reports, information on any trends that it detects. A separate recommendation, which is the responsibility of the CLG, requires, by April 2012, the introduction of a system to allow the LGO to award citizens financial compensation where local authority officials have made an incorrect decision on the grounds of health and safety and it is not possible to reinstate an event. The CLG did not reply to HSB's enquiries. |
January 2011 |
LGO to expedite complaints about event cancellation in cases of particular urgency |
Local authorities - |
|
Ongoing until June 2011 |
LGO to disseminate good practice on complaints handling to include cancellation of events |
Local authorities Communities and Local Government (CLG) |
|
November 2010 |
Launch of simplified interactive risk-assessment form for classrooms |
Low-hazard workplaces HSE |
Consultation on the HSE's online risk-assessment tool for classrooms ran between 22 November 2010 and 4 February 2011. HSE (2010), Classroom risk assessment (external website). |
December 2010 |
Launch of simplified interactive risk-assessment form for shops (including charity shops) |
Low-hazard workplaces HSE |
Consultation on the HSE's online risk-assessment tool for shops ran between 15 December 2010 and 18 March 2011. HSE (2010), Shop risk assessment (external website). Consultation on a similar tool for charity shops ran between 23 December 2010 and 16 March 2011: HSE (2010), Charity shop risk assessment (external website). |
Early 2011 |
Launch of consultation on implementing an improved system for assessing health and safety standards for larger companies with multiple outlets |
Working with larger companies Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS)/HSE |
BIS was unable to indicate what progress it has made on this recommendation. The HSE said that, as BIS was leading on this recommendation, "any formal statement needs to come from [it]." |
January 2011 |
Publish guidance for local authorities on combined health and safety and food safety inspections |
Combining food/health and safety inspections HSE and FSA |
On 4 February 2011, the FSA, HSE and Local Government Regulation issued a joint statement to local authorities on implementing combined inspection programmes from 1 April 2011. FSA, HSE, LGR (2011), Combining health and safety and food safety inspections (PDF format, 149K) (external website). |
January 2011 |
Establish a minimum standard of professional qualification for all those operating as consultants in the health and safety industry Establish a web-based directory of accredited health and safety consultants |
Raising standards Work and Pensions (DWP)/HSE |
The Occupational Safety and Health Consultants Register (external website) opened for applications on 31 January 2011, with employers able to use the register from 4 April 2011. The minimum qualification standard is based on required membership levels of any of six professional bodies, together with specified criteria. The HSE advises: "As the scheme becomes more established, we will consider the lessons for further policy development." |
January 2011 |
Offer schools a single consent form that covers all activities a child may undertake during their time at school |
Education Education (DE) |
In a statement published on 23 February 2011, the DE said it would remind schools that "parental consent is not necessary for most off-site educational visits, such as those that occur during the school day and for which information will suffice. We are considering what practical options will best take forward the recommendation that a generic consent form be prepared for every pupil during his or her school career for those activities on which consent is advised - such as residential trips in the UK or abroad, adventure activities and activities for years 1-3. We are consulting on this work as well, engaging the same people as for the health and safety guidance [see below]". DE (2011), The department's response to "Common sense. Common safety" (external website). |
January 2011 |
Introduce revised guidance on pupil health and safety including off-site educational visits and school security |
Education DE |
The DE is revising its advice on health and safety, including security, for schools. It plans to "share a draft" of its proposals with the HSE, school workforce representatives and organisations engaged in accident prevention, for consultation in March, and expects to publish the final advice in late spring. The DE advises: "The existing pieces of guidance are unduly complex and, at 150 pages in aggregate, too long. Our new departmental advice, in briefly setting out the law, should help school employers and staff to a clear knowledge of what must be done for a reasonable and proportionate observance of the duty of care, both in school and during off-site visits as recommended by Lord Young. We will consider including useful information on good practice that can assist compliance." DE (2011), The department's response to "Common sense. Common safety" (external website). |
January 2011 |
Consultation on the operation of Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR) |
RIDDOR HSE |
Consultation on replacing over-three-day injuries with over-seven-day injuries is running between 31 January and 9 May 2011. The HSE has delayed, however, the wider review of RIDDOR recommended by Young on the grounds that it will first see how the more limited consultation plays out. HSE (2011), A consultation document on proposed amendment to the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR) (PDF format, 931K) (external website), CD233. |
Spring 2011 |
Launch of consultation on a draft voluntary code of practice (external website) to replace the current Adventure Activities Licensing Authority (AALA) regime |
Adventure training HSE (with Culture, Media and Sport and DE) |
The HSE is working out how to implement this recommendation, which it says "will take some time to implement". In the interim, the Adventure Activities Licensing Service inspection and licensing activities will continue as normal. The HSE advises that the AALA will "soon" contact sector stakeholders to discuss the development of the code and any transitional arrangements. The DE advises that it is "supporting the HSE as it takes forward work" on this recommendation. |
Spring 2011 |
Launch of consultation for reform of civil justice |
Compensation culture MoJ |
Internal preparatory work is under way. |
March 2011 |
Launch of periodic checklists for use by low-risk voluntary organisations to check compliance against Regulations |
Low-hazard workplaces HSE |
The HSE would not comment specifically on its progress towards implementing this recommendation. All it would say is: "Work is ongoing and more details will be issued as and when each project completes." |
March 2011 |
Launch of consultation on consolidating current raft of health and safety legislation into a single set of accessible Regulations |
Health and safety legislation HSE/DWP |
As with the recommendation above, the HSE would not comment specifically on its progress towards implementing this recommendation. All it would say is: "Work is ongoing and more details will be issued as and when each project completes." |
March 2011 |
Publication of revised guidance for police and fire officers undertaking heroic acts |
Police and fire services Home Office/CLG/HSE |
Chris Grayling, minister of state at the Department for Work and Pensions, said in a written parliamentary answer on 7 December 2010 that the HSE is consulting with the Crown Prosecution Service regarding guidance for regulators on the application of the HSW Act "to ensure that it is consistent with, and reflects the principles, already agreed with the two services, as set out in HSE's high-level statements, Striking the balance between operational and health and safety duties in the Police Service (PDF format, 140K) and Striking the balance between operational and health and safety duties in the Fire and Rescue Service (PDF format, 92K) (external websites)". |
April 2011 |
Review of HSW Act to distinguish play and leisure activities from workplace contexts |
Education DE/HSE |
The HSE would not comment specifically on its progress towards implementing this recommendation. All it would say is: "Work is ongoing and more details will be issued as and when each project completes." The DE advises that it is "supporting the HSE in its consideration of whether or how to separate play from workplace-related general health and safety requirements". |
April 2011 |
Introduction of priority measures on Conduct Rules for claims management companies |
Compensation culture MoJ |
Although Young and Lord Justice Jackson (see above) had called for the abolition of personal injury referral fees for claims management companies, the Legal Services Board - which is the oversight body for the legal profession - said its own evidence did not allow it to conclude that referral fees were to the detriment of the consumer. The board consulted on improving, but not abolishing, the referral system, between 29 September and 22 December 2010. The board received 53 responses and is currently analysing them. Legal Services Board (2010), Referral fees, referral arrangements and fee sharing (PDF format, 760K) (external website). Responses (external website). |
May 2011 |
Presentation to FSA Board of proposals for opening delivery of food-safety inspections to accredited certification bodies |
Combining food/h&s inspections FSA |
The FSA reports it is "in the early stages of consultation with stakeholders on the principles such an approach would need to adopt and will broaden discussions as this work develops. The FSA Board will be considering this at its open meeting in May 2011." |
June 2011 |
HSE to produce clear, separate guidance under the code of practice for small and medium-sized businesses engaged in lower-risk activities |
Health and safety legislation DWP/HSE |
HSE chair Judith Hackitt says that the HSE is "committed to producing clear guidance … This naturally flows on from the work we have done on simple risk assessments." The HSE will review existing guidance and seek to simplify it. Hackitt adds that "guidance is an area where companies can come together under the umbrella of their trade bodies to produce industry-specific guidance that may be better suited to business needs", with the HSE playing a supporting role. |
April 2012 |
Aim to introduce extended Road Traffic Accident Scheme to include personal injury and low-value clinical negligence claims (subject to consultation) as part of wider civil justice reforms |
Compensation culture MoJ |
The Government advises that it "aims to introduce the new extended process by April 2012, subject to consultation". The extension will cover all fast-track personal injury claims (generally where damages claimed are up to £25,000) including clinical negligence. The change will be part of the wider civil justice reform consultation (see above). |
Source: Lord Young (2010), "Common sense. Common safety" (for cols. 1-3). |
|||
