Now that the dust has settled and people have had time to reflect upon the government’s recent snipping of red tape, the debate over the competency of these changes still ensues. The legislative changes result in the scrapping of over 3000 regulations. This now means that proposed ‘low risk’ workplaces such as shops, offices, pubs and clubs (How a club; inebriated individuals en mass, confined to often far too small premises, falls into a low risk category is beyond me) will no longer have to face inspection.
Can we rely on Employers to keep workplaces safe without inspections?
But many reports on the subject have been skewed and are misleading. The headline, ‘3000 health and safety regulations scrapped’, simply doesn’t portray the true reality of the situation. With only about 200 Health and Safety regulations in action in the first place, only 21 are being amended or scrapped. In a report by Zurich in to the effect of ‘red tape’ on SME’s across all sectors, employment regulations place higher than health and safety on the list of top regulatory challenges, and the great ‘3000’ regulatory changes largely refer to changes to employment law and pensions, amongst others . But numbers aside, whether it’s 10 or 10,000 changes to regulations, what’s important is their effect on the workforce.
Does ‘red tape’ just halt business growth or serve an important purpose?
This has of course caused fierce debate between Facilities Management professionals, who see the laxing of regulations as lifting a burden on their time and rightfully putting ‘common sense’ back into Health and Safety. And HSE professionals, who see the policy changes as a real threat to the safety of workers across the whole of the U.K.
As the debate unfolded, we spoke to some professionals from both the HSE and FM industries about their thoughts on the subject:
Ian Wright – Soft Services Manager, University College london:
‘This just formalises the reality on the ground. For some time resources have not been available for spot checks on low or high risk areas so this won’t make a great difference in practice, and corporate, personal and legal responsibilities all remain in place. However others may feel differently’ – and people do feel differently, HSE professionals in particular have a very different view on the matter’
Martin Stevens – Borough Liaison Facilities Manager
‘I can see the validity of reducing inspections where there is a sustained low risk in workplaces, but is this going to allow for an increase elsewhere?’
Paul Phillips – Assurity Consulting
‘One point this present administration keeps forgetting to say is that ‘low hazard’ work places are only ‘low risk’ if the right controls are in place and are regularly reviewed. Reducing H&S inspections is perhaps a convenient smoke screen for reducing the resources available to the inspectors. For those who are committed and conscientious it may mean an uneven playing field and an uncompetitive environment.’
Simon Lowe – Managing Director of Handsam Ltd
The problem I envisage is that the way this is being ‘sold’ will lead people, especially managers in businesses whose finances are under pressure or big businesses who are looking to ‘rationalise’, to believe that they can ignore this whole vital area of compliance. While legislation and formal guidance might be being rolled back, compensation claims continue to rise and those who have let their guard down will find themselves under threat of civil suits. On top of that, the HSE’s new charging culture which hits home next month will deliver a double-whammy when businesses get charged for being investigated for failures in an area that the government’s PR machine is pushing as ‘no more red tape’. Of course everyone understands businesses have to have less real red tape, but reducing risk and protecting employees and directors alike is essential when ensuring any business continues in the short, medium and long term.
James Thornhill – HSSE advisor at BG Group
‘With the way government decides to reduce regulations, this could really be a safety nightmare. Employees may be in more than harms way than they have ever been. The government usually goes the way big money wants them too.’
There is a good case on both sides of the argument. Consistently ‘low risk’ workplaces of course should be treated with a different approach. A corner shop is not a quarry, and does not pose the same risks. But can any workplace really be considered ‘low risk?’ And with such a public relaxation of regulations could this result in some employers becoming complacent in keeping their workplace as a safe working environment for their employees? Ultimately isn’t that what’s important? That all employees have the right to work in a safe environment, that right should never be classed as a ‘burden’.
What do you think? Please leave your comments below
The FM Network is one of the UK’s leading Facilities Management and Building Services recruiters. If you are looking for a job in Facilities Management then get in touch www.thefmnetwork.co.uk
thefmnetwork 