IIRSM Blog

22 August 2012

Although the Robens Report, on which our current legislative framework, the Health & Safety at Work, etc. Act, is based is now 40 years old, last year’s review by Prof. Ragnar Löfstedt and his committee found that in essence it was still a sound piece of legislation. While implementing a risk based approach to health and safety management, it did provide a mechanism for the introduction of more specific legislation which incorporates the provision for public consultation on any proposals to introduce, repeal or revise regulations.

For example in his report, Prof. Löfstedt proposed a review of RIDDOR to provide clarification for businesses in addition to the proposal in the previous year’s review by Lord Young, to increase the 3-day reporting requirement to 7 days. This has resulted in the publication, by HSE, of a consultative document which is open for public comment until October 28th 2012.

In what seems to be an unusually busy period for our health and safety regulators we have also seen consultative documents published on subjects as diverse as:

• Revoking fourteen legislative measures and seven Statutory Instruments which are felt to be no longer applicable

• Reviewing the format of Approved Codes of Practice with a view to making them more readily understandable by business

• Exempting some categories of self-employed workers from health and safety legislation where their activities are not deemed to present a risk to others

• Implementation of the European Directive on prevention of sharps injuries in hospitals.

Of these, the last three are still open for comments.

All these documents are available for download from the HSE website (www.hse.gov.uk) together with forms on which responses can be made.

This consultation process provides all stakeholders with an opportunity to help ensure that the changes are appropriate and acceptable. But this will only be achieved if a sufficiently high proportion of stakeholders participate. As a key stakeholder IIRSM will be presenting a response but we would always encourage our members to make their views known to HSE and also to send them to us so that they can also be incorporated in the Institute response. We have already had some responses from members to the RIDDOR consultation and further thoughts on this and the others would be welcome. These should be sent to myself at barry_h@iirsm.org, as I shall be coordinating our responses. Please take this opportunity to be constructive and help shape these changes.

Barry Holt, IIRSM Director of Policy & Research

02 August 2012

As London basks in the glow of hosting the Olympics, it has gone out of its way to look after our international visitors. Olympic Ambassadors seem to be everywhere – advising and helping our international guests to get the best out of both the Games and London. It only a shame that there appear to be some employers who are not willing to do the same for our other army of international visitors, the 5.7% of the workforce that is made up of non EU nationals most of whom work in the 3D jobs – dirty, demanding and dangerous.

The HSE highlight in their report on migrant workers (RR502), that there are no precise numbers for migrant workers, nor is there any specific method for identifying whether or not they face any specific risks. However, interviews of over 200 such workers suggest that up to a third will receive no formal Health and Safety training and the remainder only little more and as a result, there is a widespread lack of knowledge of basic health and safety including fire safety.

More worryingly, those working with chemicals had little knowledge of what they were working with or the associated risks and up to 25% admitted to having been involved in or having witnessed an accident. This does suggest a higher level of incidence than for EU workers. Underreporting may well be a serious issue; many said that they did not report incidents concerned that their employers would see them as a risk and would dismiss them. Coupled with this low level of knowledge of their rights was an underlying perception that they alone were responsible for their own health and safety and that their employer had little or no responsibility.

The UK prides itself in being among the leaders in the development and application of health and safety legislation, systems and processes. The success of the Olympic Delivery Authority in delivering the safest capital building project ever will become a case study for many. Should there ever be a Health and Safety Olympics, I have no doubt that the UK would head the medal tables. Is it not shameful, therefore, that in a country which prides itself on leading the way in health and safety, that nearly 6% of our workers may not be getting the same level of protection that the rest of us consider our right?

Brian Nimick, IIRSM Chief Executive