Health and Safety Executive

Health and Safety Executive

Update on Löfstedt

Review and Red Tape

Challenge

Anthony Lees

HSE Construction Policy Unit

Better regulation policy

• Government better regulation strategy

• June 2010 – Lord Young review

• October 2010 – ‘Common Sense, Common Safety’

• February 2011 – Ministerial Statement

• May 2011 – Löfstedt – call for evidence

• November 2011 – Report and Government response

Better regulation policy

• April 2011 – Red Tape Challenge

• Health and Safety theme

• July 2011 – ‘spotlight’ period

• 2012 – ‘Star Chamber’ process

• Lofstedt and RTC implementation: 2011-2015?

Löfstedt Report - themes

• Specific revocations and consideration of further consolidation

• Review of all ACoPs

• Self-employed exemption

• Civil liability and strict liability regulations

• Improving quality and consistency of local authority enforcement

• Influencing Europe to ensure legislation is risk-based

Löfstedt recommendations – observations

• HSE welcomes the report

• Opportunity to improve regulation

• Impact limited on higher risk sectors

• Does not dilute standards

• Some uncertainty over implications of future work

Specific Revocations

• Two tranches of specific revocations

• 1st tranche – 7 Statutory Instruments - consultation closed

• 2nd tranche – 14 Statutory instruments - consultation opens early April

• Three construction-specific Regulations– Construction (Head Protection) Regulations

1989– Notification of Conventional Tower Cranes

Regulations 2010 + amendment

Construction (Head Protection) Regulations 1989 - rationale

• Regulations have largely delivered what they set out to

• Head protection culturally-embedded in industry practice

• Equivalent protection offered under PPE Regulations

• Behaviours unlikely to change

• Existing exemption retained

Notification of Conventional Tower Cranes Regulations 2010 - rationale

• Rationale for introduction

• Target public assurance, not health and safety

• Existing legislation provides adequate framework for assurance of integrity

• Non-regulatory work has improved standards

• Have not delivered expected benefits

• Costs substantially higher than expected

Specific revocations - process

• Standard 12 week public consultation

• Backed by impact assessments (form part of consultative document)

• Subject to committee scrutiny and Ministerial approval

• Any revocations expected later this year

• Need to publicise revocations and implications – industry support welcome

Review of ACoPs

• ACoPs have basis in Robens Report

• Intended to add precision in the context of goal-setting legislation

• Wide support for ACoPs, but concerns over length and complexity

• Focus should be on assisting SMEs

Review of ACoPs

• Review willl determine whhether each ACoP:– Is still required– Gives unambiguous guidance about

what is required– Is up to date– Is presented in the most apropriate way

• CDM ACoP outwith

• Timings

Self-employed exemption

• Specific recommendation in Löfstedt

• Cannot apply to construction work due to Directive basis of CDM

• Intended to apply to low-risk activities

• Explicitly will not apply to construction

Civil liability and strict liability requirements

• Löfsted concern over extent of right of civil action under regulations: fear of civil action provides a perverse incentive to employers– Pre-action protocols (‘Woolf lists’)– Strict liability

• Use of pre-disclosure lists to be restated and clarified

• Strict liability to be examined and either tempered by SFAIRP, or right to civil action restricted

Other specific recommendations

• CDM

• Challenge Panel(s)

• Work at Height Regulations 2005

Löfstedt: CDM 2007 recommendation

• Löfstedt said little about CDM – he was aware of the review

• Effectively recommended that HSE should now publish the CDM evaluation report

Challenge Panels

• Recommended an independent panel to allow challenge of decisions

• HSE will form two panels– January 2012 – Independent

Regulatory Challenge Panel– Later 2012 – ‘wider’ challenge panel

Work at Height Regulations

• Löfstedt recommended review of WAHR– Regulations are risk based, but poorly

understood and applied – the ‘2m rule dilemma’

– Particularly an issue for SMEs– Elements of gold plating – eg

stepladders

• Ministerial interest in how WAHR is misapplied or burdensome

• Construction fully played into review

Red Tape Challenge

• Comments made to RTC were considered by Löfstedt

• Significant amount of discussion between departments and Ministers – ‘Star Chambers’

• Process described on RTC website

• 3 meetings so far, more planned