Health
Healthand
andSafety
Safety
Executive
Executive
Update on Löfstedt
Review and Red Tape
Challenge
Anthony Lees
HSE Construction Policy Unit
Better regulation policy
•
•
•
Government better regulation strategy
•
•
•
February 2011 – Ministerial Statement
June 2010 – Lord Young review
October 2010 – ‘Common Sense,
Common Safety’
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: 20112015?
Löfstedt Report - themes
•
Specific revocations and consideration of
further consolidation
•
•
•
•
Review of all ACoPs
•
Influencing Europe to ensure legislation is
risk-based
Self-employed exemption
Civil liability and strict liability regulations
Improving quality and consistency of local
authority enforcement
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
•
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
1st tranche – 7 Statutory Instruments consultation closed
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
•
Existing legislation provides adequate
framework for assurance of integrity
•
Non-regulatory work has improved
standards
•
•
Have not delivered expected benefits
Target public assurance, not health and
safety
Costs substantially higher than expected
Specific revocations - process
•
•
Standard 12 week public consultation
•
Subject to committee scrutiny and
Ministerial approval
•
•
Any revocations expected later this year
Backed by impact assessments (form part
of consultative document)
Need to publicise revocations and
implications – industry support welcome
Review of ACoPs
•
•
ACoPs have basis in Robens Report
•
Wide support for ACoPs, but concerns
over length and complexity
•
Focus should be on assisting SMEs
Intended to add precision in the context of
goal-setting legislation
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
•
•
Intended to apply to low-risk activities
Cannot apply to construction work due to
Directive basis of CDM
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