Lfstedt review of health and safety legislation

The results of a survey of IOSH members views

July 2011

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any material form (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic or photographic means and whether or not transiently or incidentally to some other use of this publication) without written permission of IOSH, the copyright owner. Applications for written permission to reproduce any part of this publication should be addressed to the publisher. All web addresses are current at the time of going to press. The publisher takes no responsibility for subsequent changes. Warning: The doing of an unauthorised act in relation to a copyright work may result in both a civil claim for damages and criminal prosecution. IOSH 2011 Published by IOSH The Grange Highfield Drive Wigston Leicestershire LE18 1NN UK t +44 (0)116 257 3100 f +44 (0)116 257 3101 www.iosh.co.uk

Contents
List of tables and figures Executive summary Results 1: about the respondents Results 2: evidence for the review References Acknowledgments Appendix A: Text of the email sent to all UK IOSH members introducing the survey 4 5 7 10 29 29 30

4 Lfstedt review of health and safety legislation the results of a survey of IOSH members views

Lists of tables and figures

Tables
1 2 3 4 5 5a 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Number of respondents Respondents role Respondents IOSH membership category Size of respondents organisation, by number of employees Respondents employment sector Other responses to employment sector question Health and safety regulations and ACoPs that should not be changed Respondents who cited the Work at Height Regulations, by sector Respondents who cited the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations, by sector Respondents who cited the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations, by sector Responses involving the six-pack regulations Respondents who did not cite regulations or ACoPs that need to be simplified Regulations and ACoPs that need to be simplified Respondents who did not cite specific regulations or ACoPs to be merged Regulations and ACoPs that could be merged Respondents who did not cite specific regulations or ACoPs that could be abolished Regulations or ACoPs that could be abolished without any negative effect on individuals health and safety Respondents who did not cite specific regulations or ACoPs that create additional burdens for business Regulations or ACoPs that place significant burdens on business with little positive impact Respondents views of reasonably practicable Respondents views on unreasonable outcomes, inappropriate litigation and compensation Respondents comments on outcomes, litigation and compensation Areas discussed in relation to unreasonable outcomes, or to inappropriate litigation and compensation Respondents views on EU approaches Approach and regulating for risks in EU countries EU countries cited with reference to their approach to and regulation of particular risks and hazards Respondents views of gold plating in UK legislation EU Directives and legislation that respondents feel have been gold plated Respondents views on responsibility and the law Changes to the law suggested by respondents Types of other comments provided Other comments 7 7 8 8 8 9 10 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 16 17 18 19 19 20 21 21 23 24 24 25 26 27 27 28 28 29

Figures
1 2 Other roles specified Comments on overall approach 7 24

Lfstedt review of health and safety legislation the results of a survey of IOSH members views 5

Executive summary
Background
As part of the Governments plans to reform Britains health and safety system, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Minister for Employment, the Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP, commissioned an independent review of health and safety legislation. This independent review of health and safety legislation is to be undertaken by a panel of cross-party politicians, employer and employee representatives, chaired by Professor Ragnar Lfstedt.1 The call for evidence for the review opened on 20 May 2011 and closed on 29 July 2011. The review is due to make recommendations to Ministers by the end of October 2011.2

Aims of the review

The review will consider the opportunities for reducing the burden of health and safety legislation on UK businesses while maintaining the progress made in improving health and safety outcomes. In particular, it will consider the scope for combining, simplifying or reducing approximately 200 statutory instruments owned by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and primarily enforced by HSE and local authorities. The review will also look at the associated Approved Codes of Practice (ACoPs) which provide advice, with special legal status, on compliance with health and safety law. This report presents the results of a survey of IOSH members in the UK that requested member views and evidence to support the IOSH response to the Lfstedt review.

Method
In order to obtain IOSH members views and evidence to support the IOSH response to the Lfstedt review, an online survey was developed by the Policy and Technical team. The survey was designed to collect quantitative demographic information about the respondents and qualitative responses to the questions set by the Lfstedt review. The survey was designed and produced using Snap survey software and was published and uploaded to the internet. A link to the online survey was sent by email to 33,236 UK members of IOSH on Tuesday 31 May 2011 (see Appendix A). Participation reminders were placed in the IOSH online bulletin Connect on 6 and 14 June 2011 and the survey closed for comments on Friday 24 June 2011. There were 228 responses to the survey. The response to the review questions was very high, with the 11 questions from 6 to 16 gaining an average response of 82 per cent. This level of response provided a wide range of data and, as these questions were all open-ended, allowed respondents to supply a large amount of information in response to the question. The text supplied by respondents was coded in order to quantify the data and more easily recognise the themes and issues described. The same code was used across questions 6 to 11, which all deal with areas of legislation and Approved Codes of Practice (ACoPs). Questions 12 to 16 were individually coded according to their more varied subject matter.

Results summary
Of the 228 respondents to the survey, a large proportion were Chartered and Graduate Members of IOSH. This group was over-represented in relation to the overall membership profile. The views of a range of grades as well as non-practitioner IOSH members were also received. Given the modest response rate and non-representative nature of the respondent group, caution must be exercised in interpreting the findings. While they are interesting and provide a useful sample of membership views, they are individual views and not necessarily those of IOSH. In answer to the review questions, members cited 40 regulations and ACoPs they felt had significantly improved health and safety and should not be changed. The top four were: the the the the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (as amended) Work at Height Regulations 2005 Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.

The top four cited as the best candidates for simplification were:

6 Lfstedt review of health and safety legislation the results of a survey of IOSH members views

the the the the

Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (as amended) Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 Work at Height Regulations 2005.

The most commonly suggested mergers were: the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 with the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 with the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (as amended) (COSHH) with all other biochemical-related regulations the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 with the Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996 the Construction (Head Protection) Regulations 1989 with either the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 or the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992.

Twenty-one different regulations and ACoPs were suggested for abolition, most by single respondents, with only the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 proposed by more than 10 people. The primary reason for citing these regulations as candidates for abolition was that it was felt that they have not kept pace with advances in technology. Most respondents didnt think there were regulations that had added a significant burden on business while having a limited impact on health and safety. The majority of respondents supported the concept of reasonably practicable, calling it vital or essential, though a minority thought it caused uncertainty. Over 13 per cent thought compensation was driving inappropriate legislation, not the regulation or ACoPs themselves. The majority felt there was no evidence of gold plating of transposed law, with small numbers thinking there had been instances of under-transposition. Some felt that insurers could lead organisations to apply gold plating to legislative requirements. Approximately 40 per cent felt that the way health and safety law places responsibility on risk creators was currently appropriate, but there were suggested changes, including: directors to have legally explicit duties employees duties to be strengthened stronger enforcement.

General suggestions included: tackling the so-called compensation culture a broad set of regulations with sector-specific ACoPs improved risk education by incorporating health and safety into the curriculum.

Lfstedt review of health and safety legislation the results of a survey of IOSH members views 7

Results 1: about the respondents

Q1 Please provide your IOSH membership number
There were a total of 228 respondents to the survey. All supplied some form of data for this question. Of the data supplied, 222 respondents submitted a number and 6 respondents supplied comments such as dont know or a mobile phone number. As time constraints did not allow for cross-checking each number supplied against the IOSH membership database to verify that they are IOSH membership numbers, data from all 228 respondents is included in this report.
Options Number of respondents Number 228 % of respondents 100 Table 1 Number of respondents

Q2 Which option best describes your role?

Options Health and safety professional (in-house) Health and safety consultant Both of the above Other Operational manager Total Number of respondents 118 52 21 29 8 228 % of respondents 51.8 22.8 9.2 12.7 3.5 100.0 Table 2 Respondents role

Q2a If other, please specify

Forty-three respondents supplied data for this question, although only 37 respondents had selected other at question 2; therefore 6 respondents answered both questions. These respondents are excluded from the analysis of responses to this question to avoid double counting. Of the remaining 37 respondents, 8 provided answers that repeat the options in question 2 and these have been incorporated into Table 2 above. The remaining 29 respondents supplied other role information. This information is presented in Figure 1. Of the other roles specified, the two largest groups of 8 respondents (27.5 per cent) either work in or are undertaking teaching, training or education or are employed in the area of enforcement.
Figure 1 Other roles specified

8 Lfstedt review of health and safety legislation the results of a survey of IOSH members views

Q3 What is your membership category?

All 228 respondents supplied data for this question. Over 63 per cent of respondents (n = 144) were in the highest IOSH membership grades of Chartered Fellow and Chartered Member.
Table 3 Respondents IOSH membership category Options Chartered Fellow Chartered Member Graduate Member Technician Member Affiliate Member Other Total Number of respondents 24 120 50 21 13 0 228 % of respondents 10.5 52.6 22.0 9.2 5.7 0.0 100.0

Q4 How many people are employed by your organisation or the organisation you do work for?
Table 4 Size of respondents organisation, by number of employees Options > 10,000 employees 1,00110,000 employees 2501,000 employees 50249 employees < 50 employees Not applicable Total Number of respondents 33 54 49 36 35 21 228 % of respondents 14.5 23.7 21.5 15.8 15.4 9.1 100.0

Q5 Which option best describes the sector (or main sector) you work in?
Table 5 Respondents employment sector Options Other Construction Public services Education Manufacturing Facilities management Transport, storage and distribution Chemicals and pharmaceutical Healthcare and social work Extraction and utilities Defence Railway Number of respondents 36 34 34 23 23 11 11 10 9 9 8 6

Lfstedt review of health and safety legislation the results of a survey of IOSH members views 9

Options Leisure and hospitality Emergency services Agriculture, forestry and fishing Food and drink Finance and other business activities Mining, quarrying and energy supply Retail and wholesale Engineering Communications and media Environment, waste and recycling Nuclear

Number of respondents 6 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 1 1 0

Table 5 continued

Q5a If other, please specify

36 respondents selected the other option and went on to specify details of their sector. Of these: 6 were discounted as they had already selected a sector at Q5 19 of the 36 respondents described a sector already listed at Q5 and were added to table 5 17 respondents described a sector not listed at Q5. The data they provided is presented in Table 5a.
Number of respondents 9 5 2 1 17 % of respondents 53.0 29.4 11.8 5.8 100.0 Table 5a Other responses to employment sector question

Options All sectors Maintenance and service sector Sciences Legal Total

10 Lfstedt review of health and safety legislation the results of a survey of IOSH members views

Results 2: evidence for the review

Introduction
Respondents were asked to describe examples of cases where they had direct knowledge and to include any evidence they had to support their answers to the specific review consultation questions. The responses to the following 11 questions were all open-ended text and have been coded and analysed to provide quantitative and qualitative data. A summary of these data provides an overview of the direction of respondents comments and highlights responses where information about practical experience has been illustrated or described. It should be noted that a number of pieces of legislation cited by respondents were additional to those listed in the call for evidence.

Q6 Are there any particular health and safety regulations (or ACoPs) that have significantly improved health and safety and should not be changed?
A total of 205 of the survey respondents (90 per cent) provided comments for question 6. Of these, 54 (26 per cent) provided general comments but did not cite specific regulations or ACoPs. The remaining 151 respondents (73 per cent) mentioned specific regulations or ACoPs they felt had, in their experience, significantly improved health and safety. The most cited regulations were the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (as amended), which were mentioned by 80 of these respondents. Of these 80 respondents, 41 work as in-house safety professionals and hold Chartered membership of IOSH. Comments on these regulations highlight the importance of the risk assessment process. For example: Risk assessment is a commonly used term now, although much-maligned, and these regulations serve to emphasise that health and safety needs to be integrated into our whole way of working. The need to think up front about what you're doing and the need to consider the impact of what you are doing in the wider context is very much part of this process, and is now embodied in the principles of risk assessment.
Table 6 Health and safety regulations and ACoPs that should not be changed Number of respondents 80 42 38 38 35 31 25 24 21 21 19 15 14 12 10 10

Title Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (as amended) Work at Height Regulations 2005 Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (as amended) Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 Confined Spaces Regulations 1997

Lfstedt review of health and safety legislation the results of a survey of IOSH members views 11

Title Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 Legionnaires disease. The control of legionella bacteria in water systems. Approved Code of Practice and guidance (L8) Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999 Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002 Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981 Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005 Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 (as amended) Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 Control of lead at work. Control of Lead at Work Regulations 2002 Approved Code of Practice and guidance (L132) Driving at work: managing work-related road safety (INDG382) Offshore Installations (Safety Case) Regulations 2005 Working Time Regulations 1998 (as amended) Control of Artificial Optical Radiation at Work Regulations 2010 Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 Pressure Systems Safety Regulations 2000 Notification of Conventional Tower Cranes Regulations 2010 Health and Safety (Offences) Act 2008 Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Health and Safety (Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations 1996 Quarries Regulations 1999 Rider operated lift trucks (L117) Health and Safety Information for Employees Regulations 1989 (as amended) Docks Regulations 1988

Number of respondents 8 8 7 7 7 7 6 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Table 6 continued

The second most cited regulations were the Work at Height Regulations 2005, mentioned by 42 respondents (28 per cent). Analysis of these respondents by sector shows that these regulations are used across a variety of sectors and are most cited by respondents who work in the public services, construction and education sectors (Table 7). The third most cited regulations were the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 and the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, both of which were mentioned by 38 (25 per cent) of respondents to this question. Tables 8 and 9 show that both these regulations are cited by respondents across a wide range of employment sectors.

12 Lfstedt review of health and safety legislation the results of a survey of IOSH members views

Table 7 Respondents who cited the Work at Height Regulations, by sector

Sector Public services Construction Education Manufacturing Chemicals and pharmaceutical Transport, storage and distribution Extraction and utilities Emergency services Finance and other business activities Healthcare and social work Railway Leisure and hospitality Mining, quarrying and energy supply Communications and media Consultant (all sectors) Total

Number of respondents 8 6 6 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 42

Table 8 Respondents who cited the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations, by sector

Sector Construction Public services Manufacturing Transport, storage and distribution Consultant (all sectors) Facilities management Extraction or utilities Education Chemicals and pharmaceutical Defence Emergency services Finance and other business activities Agriculture, forestry and fishing Food and drink Healthcare and social work Total

Number of respondents 11 5 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 38

Lfstedt review of health and safety legislation the results of a survey of IOSH members views 13

Sector Public services Construction Education Consultant (all sectors) Manufacturing Chemicals and pharmaceutical Facilities management Transport, storage and distribution Emergency services Healthcare and social work Extraction and utilities Defence Railway Food and drink Retail and wholesale Total

Number of respondents 8 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 38

Table 9 Respondents who cited the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations, by sector

Respondents were positive about the so-called six-pack regulations, but analysis shows that there is a wide disparity between the most and least popular of these (Table 10).
Number of respondents 80 38 21 19 15 8 Table 10 Responses involving the sixpack regulations

Title Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (as amended) Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992

Overall respondents find the regulations they use and experience in their work are useful and are not supportive of change to these. Many respondents referenced the Approved Codes of Practice (ACoPs) alongside the regulations and stated that they found these helpful, but there was concern that they may be considered too technical by non-practitioners. For example: All ACoPs are still very hard to understand for the SMEs and need to be written in clear English so [they are] easily understandable.

Q7 Are there any particular health and safety regulations (or ACoPs) which need to be simplified?
208 respondents (91 per cent) provided data for question 7. 102 of these respondents (49 per cent) replied either yes, no or provided general comments but did not cite specific regulations (Table 11).

14 Lfstedt review of health and safety legislation the results of a survey of IOSH members views

Table 11 Respondents who did not cite regulations or ACoPs that need to be simplified

Type of comment Yes No General or miscellaneous comments Total

Number of respondents 11 57 34 102

The remaining 106 respondents cited regulations or ACoPs which they felt need to be simplified. Twenty-eight mentioned the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (COSHH); 21 mentioned the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (CDM); and 18 mentioned the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations (DSE) (see Table 12).
Table 12 Regulations and ACoPs that need to be simplified Number of respondents 28 21 18 11 10 8 8 8 8 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 2

Title Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (as amended) Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 Work at Height Regulations 2005 Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002 Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005 Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (as amended) Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Working Time Regulations 1998 (as amended) Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981 Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 (as amended) Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road Legionnaires' disease. The control of legionella bacteria in water systems. Approved Code of Practice and guidance (L8)

Lfstedt review of health and safety legislation the results of a survey of IOSH members views 15

Title Control of lead at work. Control of Lead at Work Regulations 2002 Approved Code of Practice and guidance (L132) Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 2002 Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 Confined Spaces Regulations 1997 Rider operated lift trucks (L117) Pressure Systems Safety Regulations 2000 Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) Regulations 1998 Control of Artificial Optical Radiation at Work Regulations 2010

Number of respondents 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Table 12 continued

The ACoPs for both CDM and COSHH are considered to be over complicated and difficult for the non-specialist, and respondents feel this is largely due to the language used to present them. Respondents would like to see the information in these ACoPs presented in more accessible language to aid non-specialist understanding. For example: Most of the standards appear to use many words when a few will do. Perhaps making the standards or legislation easier to understand for the lay person and removing the need for translation by a professional? COSHH, as it is a very technical area, the better it is explained in laymans terms, the easier the effective use of chemicals will be understood. Respondents who mentioned simplifying the DSE regulations and the related guidance said that this would enable them to be updated to reflect the many technological changes that have occurred since the regulations were first introduced. Comments supplied include: Risk assessment in general DSE regulations in particular technology has moved on and Needs an update due to technological developments.

Q8 Are there any particular health and safety regulations (or ACoPs) which it would be helpful to merge together and why?
A total of 180 respondents (79 per cent) provided data for question 8. Of these 91 (50.5 per cent) replied no to the question or provided general comments but did not cite specific regulations that could be merged together (Table 13).
Type of comment No General or miscellaneous comments Total Number of respondents 59 32 91 Table 13 Respondents who did not cite specific regulations or ACoPs that need to be merged

The remaining 89 respondents (49.5 per cent) suggested a range of legislation that it might be possible to merge, as presented in Table 14. The most frequently suggested legislation or ACoPs that could be merged together were: the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 with the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (20 respondents)

16 Lfstedt review of health and safety legislation the results of a survey of IOSH members views

the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 with the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 (11 respondents), or both of these to be merged with the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 (4 respondents) the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 with the Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996 and the Offshore Installations (Safety Representatives and Safety Committees) Regulations 1989* (9 respondents) the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (as amended) to incorporate any or all of the following chemical-related areas: asbestos (5 respondents) lead (4 respondents) genetically modified organisms (2 respondents) the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations (DSEAR) (6 respondents) the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations (CHIP) (4 respondents) the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations (COMAH) (1 respondent) the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals Regulations (REACH) (4 respondents) the Construction (Head Protection) Regulations 1989 to be merged with either the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (4 respondents) or the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 (3 respondents).
Number of respondents 24 22 21 20 14 12 12 12 11 10 9 8 8 7 6 5 5 5 5 4

Table 14 Regulations and ACoPs that could be merged

Title Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (as amended) Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (as amended) Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005 Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996 Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002 Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 Work at Height Regulations 2005 Construction (Head Protection) Regulations 1989 Control of lead at work. Control of Lead at Work Regulations 2002 Approved Code of Practice and guidance (L132)

* Some respondents referred simply to safety rep regulations, which we have assumed includes those for the offshore sector.

Lfstedt review of health and safety legislation the results of a survey of IOSH members views 17

Title Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981 Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2009 Control of Artificial Optical Radiation at Work Regulations 2010 Confined Spaces Regulations 1997 Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2000 (as amended) Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 (as amended) Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 Notification of Conventional Tower Cranes Regulations 2010 Legionnaires' disease. The control of legionella bacteria in water systems. Approved Code of Practice and guidance (L8) Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999 Health and Safety (Offences) Act 2008 Rider operated lift trucks (L117) Pressure Systems Safety Regulations 2000 Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996

Number of respondents 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Table 14 continued

Q9 Are there any particular health and safety regulations or ACoPs that could be abolished without any negative effect on the health and safety of individuals?
A total of 180 respondents (79 per cent) provided data for question 9. Of these over half (56.6 per cent) said they did not think there were any health and safety regulations or ACoPs that could be abolished. Only 3 (1.6 per cent) respondents generally agreed that there were regulations or ACoPs that could be abolished but did not name these. A further 36 respondents (20 per cent) supplied general comments that did not name regulations or ACoPs (Table 15).
Type of comment Yes No General or miscellaneous comments Total Number of respondents 3 103 36 142 Table 15 Respondents who did not cite specific regulations or ACoPs that could be abolished

The remaining 38 respondents (21 per cent) named specific regulations or ACoPs they thought could be abolished without negative effect. The most-cited regulation was the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations. The reasons for this are the same as described in response to question 7 ie the regulations have not kept pace with technological changes (Table 16).

18 Lfstedt review of health and safety legislation the results of a survey of IOSH members views

Table 16 Regulations and ACoPs that could be abolished without any negative effect on individuals health and safety

Title Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 Construction (Head Protection) Regulations 1989 Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (as amended) Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 Work at Height Regulations 2005 Working Time Regulations 1998 (as amended) Health and Safety (Offences) Act 2008 Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Health and Safety (Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations 1996 Health and Safety Information for Employees Regulations 1989 (as amended) Docks Regulations 1988 Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) Regulations 1998 Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996 Health and Safety (Fees) Regulations 2007 Compressed Acetylene (Importation) Regulations 1978 Celluloid and Cinematograph Film Act 1922 (Exemptions) Regulations 1980 Celluloid and Cinematograph Film Act 1922 (Repeals and Modifications) Regulations 1974

Number of respondents 17 6 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Overall, the majority of respondents to this question did not see the need to abolish regulations or ACoPs at all and just replied no. Other respondents supplied general comments which expressed some of the reasons for the negative response to this question including: abolishing a number of regulations or ACoPs, interpretation could be harder (respondent 2) Regulations/ACoPs should only be abolished if advances in technology or management systems make them redundant When you look at the list of topics covered by regulations they can all be justified, as ill health and injury statistics highlight I strongly feel that some improvements are only a result of regulation and enforcement.

Q10 Are there any particular health and safety regulations that have created significant additional burdens on business but that have had limited impact on health or safety?
A total of 183 respondents (80 per cent) supplied data for this question. Of these 62 per cent answered either yes, no or supplied general comments around the issue (Table 17). The majority of these respondents did not feel that any health and safety regulations represented a burden to business. The remaining 70 respondents (38 per cent) supplied the titles of regulations they consider to have added significant additional burdens on business (Table 18).

Lfstedt review of health and safety legislation the results of a survey of IOSH members views 19

Type of comment Yes No General or miscellaneous comments Total

Number of respondents 5 69 39 113

Table 17 Respondents who did not cite specific regulations or ACoPs that create additional burdens for business

Title Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (as amended) Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (as amended) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Control of Artificial Optical Radiation at Work Regulations 2010 Work at Height Regulations 2005 Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 Working Time Regulations 1998 (as amended) Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 (as amended) Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 Health and Safety (Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations 1996 Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 Health and Safety Information for Employees Regulations 1989 (as amended) Docks Regulations 1988

Number of respondents 19 17 10 6 5 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Table 18 Regulations and ACoPs that place significant burdens on business with little positive impact

Thirty-nine respondents supplied general comments and these highlighted some significant areas in relation to burdens on business. The key theme of these comments is that in their experience, the main problem is not regulation itself, but the poor interpretation of it by business organisations. For example: Usually it is the corporate interpretation of them that is unrealistic There are instances where interpretation and subjectivity result in variations in implementation. In my opinion it is not the regulations themselves that are an issue but the occasional over-zealous application of them that is the problem. it is generally the interpretation (misinterpretation) of the legislation that has added the burden. Examples would be producing written RAMS for tasks where there is no significant risk, and some of the H&S questionnaires produced to demonstrate competence in the CDM Regs add little value.

20 Lfstedt review of health and safety legislation the results of a survey of IOSH members views

I think that poor interpretation of the Management Regs has caused some employers to overcomplicate their H&S systems by producing complex risk assessments, with unrealistic outcomes, for low risk activities.

This lack of understanding has contributed to accidents. A respondent cites the following in relation to manual handling: Manual handling regulations many employers could make simple improvements through relevant training but they don't understand that this is so. If it is less than 25 kg being lifted, it is no risk in their eyes. We had a serious injury where a girl of 17 years was asked to lift a pot of hot soup weighing less than 7 kg above shoulder height; according to figure 23 in the ACoP, this required assessment. Seventy respondents cited specific regulations in response to this question. The most cited regulations were once again the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations. Where given, reasons for choosing this regulation vary and include the cost of eye tests and the amount of paperwork the assessment generates, but interpretation and perception are also issues, leading one respondent to state: Over the top interpretation has caused a financial burden to companies that I know, due to feeling obligated [to change] office layouts to overcome perceived ergonomic risks.

Q11 To what extent does the concept of reasonably practicable help manage the burden of health and safety regulation?
A total of 215 respondents (94 per cent) supplied data for this question (see Table 19). Of these, 52 per cent (n = 112) supported the concept of reasonably practicable and provided a range of positive comments on it. Some described it as vital, essential or absolutely necessary and felt that it gives employers a proportionate and pragmatic approach that provides them with flexibility. A smaller group of respondents (n = 14) felt that although the concept is helpful, it is not always well understood or interpreted. The Health and Safety Executive has worked to mitigate this problem with some success, leading a respondent to state: The concept and practical implications of ALARP has certainly become clearer over time, with helpful guidance having emerged from the regulatory authorities. Twenty-four respondents felt ambivalent about the concept of reasonably practicable, as it can sometimes be subjective and does not produce a definitive solution that is applicable to all situations. A respondent illustrates this perspective, stating: It can help with providing flexibility to solutions but can also hinder when managers or directors want a black and white answer to a question. By applying reasonably practicable to everything means you can end up with many different answers to the same question because of peoples different perceptions of risk.
Table 19 Respondents views of reasonably practicable Number of respondents 112 14 24 37 14 14 215 % of respondents 52.0 6.6 11.1 17.1 6.6 6.6 100.0

Types of comment It is very helpful positive comments It is quite helpful positive but qualified It is sometimes helpful positive and negative points It is not very helpful negative but qualified comments It is very unhelpful negative comments General or miscellaneous comments Total

Lfstedt review of health and safety legislation the results of a survey of IOSH members views 21

In total there were 51 negative comments about the concept from respondents who felt it was either not very helpful or very unhelpful. These respondents feel it is a subjective grey area that is open to interpretation and can confuse non-specialists. Respondents also felt that it created uncertainty for employers as it is too vague and as such is meaningless to them. These respondents feel more definition of the concept is needed and would like to see more guidance on this.

Q12 Are there any examples where health and safety regulations have led to unreasonable outcomes, or to inappropriate litigation and compensation?
A total of 185 respondents (81 per cent) supplied data for this question. Of these, 157 (85 per cent) replied yes, no, dont know, no comment or supplied general comments about the question areas. Eighty-one respondents opted to say no dont know or no comment (see Table 20). Of the remaining 76 respondents, 46 supplied comments and 30 said yes. Nineteen of the yes group also supplied comments and a total of 13 respondents from both groups supplied examples from their knowledge or experience of where they feel health and safety regulations have led to unreasonable outcomes, inappropriate litigation and compensation (Table 21).
Type of comment Yes No Dont know General or miscellaneous comments No comment Total Number of respondents 30 67 11 39 3 113 Table 20 Respondents views on unreasonable outcomes, inappropriate litigation and compensation

Comment supplied My experiences in industry have shown that many organisations do leave themselves open to litigation and compensation by having inadequate controls in place, from pre-employment through induction and ongoing training of employees. In particular, lack of compliance monitoring to a reasonable extent is not an uncommon finding through H&S audit processes carried out on contractors on behalf of clients. Yes: Biocidal Products vs. COSHH: I know of a case where an organisation had failed to register under the BPD a natural ingredient which replaced formaldehyde in an embalming fluid. So the whole product was banned and the organisation was faced with a choice of having to go back to using formaldehyde-based solution or attempt to register at a cost of about 80K. The former choice is directly contrary to the hierarchy of control measures in COSHH. BPD also resulted in the removal of Hycolin as a disinfectant. There are also sometimes conflicts e.g. Home Office vs. HSE re animal housing. Example: to keep animals clean and protected from humans you need positive pressure in a housing room and to minimise likelihood of infection or sensitisation you need negative pressure. The holding of ATCSA Schedule 5 substances has resulted in some huge security requirements for someone holding a few mg of something like BOTOX. Yes: where a worker had used an uneven surfaced car park for years and then one day tripped over and sued the company. All steps had been taken to make the car park as safe as possible (all reasonable practicableness). The litigation which was lost by the company resulted in thousands of having to be spent on asphalting the car park. This incident was the first in 3 years and approx 120 vehicles used the car park on a daily basis. Yes. We had a claim where a member of staff injured his back whilst lifting a reasonable weight incorrectly. He had been trained by the company but records were not kept and the insurance paid out because there was no proof that the training had taken place. The law seems to be framed in such a way that it was less costly to pay the compensation than the cost of taking it to court. This, of course ignores the innocence of the organisation and does not give the company the chance to clear its name which, under certain circumstances, can be very important to the public image of that organisation. The need to write warning hazard signs on the obvious such as tea and coffee cups and hot water taps. These are every day items and people are aware of the hazards involved.

Table 21 Respondents comments on outcomes, litigation and compensation

22 Lfstedt review of health and safety legislation the results of a survey of IOSH members views

Table 21 continued

Comment supplied Management of health and safety and health, safety and welfare. I have been dealing with a claim where a individual slipped over, the spillage had just been reported and was in the process of having a cleaner get to it. But they still won the case. CDM is often over-managed by extensive paperwork despite warnings not to do so. I do feel that the case of an RAF civilian typist receiving well over 450k in compensation for RSI is obscene compared to the reported 8k an active serviceman or woman would get for losing their whole arm in combat. These figures may not be quite accurate but the principle is wrong. I definitely feel angered every time those claims direct-type adverts come on. This is where the stupid stories of conkers being banned and similar cases come from people are so scared of being sued they feel they have to go to extremes to protect the company against a claim. This means that instead of being able to apply common sense and reasonably practicable, people don't look at the magnitude of risk they just blanket ban things. We suffered a litigious incident where a claim was brought successfully which I believe was unfair. A young woman was descending some external chequer plate steps in rainy conditions. The steps had previously treated with a slip resistant material but this had worn from the tops of the ellipse pattern on the chequer plate in places. The woman was wearing flip flops, had her phone in one hand (in use) and her handbag in the other and was not using the hand rail. She slipped but did not suffer any serious injury. I would argue that there was sufficient slip resistance in the design of the steps and the remaining coating which had been applied to reduce the risk of persons slipping who were paying adequate attention to their own H&S under wet weather conditions on an open staircase. How far does a duty of care need to go? Especially when claimants can bring a claim three years after the event when records and employees at the time no longer are available. The EHO from the local authority (spuriously reported under RIDDOR) suggested that we also post warning signs advising persons to use the hand rail under rainy conditions. In other cases we have successfully defended claims of people slipping on spilled liquids and food in open areas of an indoor shopping centre but we have had to resort to CCTV footage, confirmation from BICSc that a 15-minute cleaning rota is sufficient for the type of floor surface and the average footfall and a measurement of slip resistance on the floor material itself to determine it is fit for purpose. Yes, an abuse by an individual trying to pursue compensation for a manual handling injury that had not happened. The Health and Safety (Enforcing Authorities) Regulations specify the split in enforcement responsibilities between HSE and local authorities (LAs). The Regulations have been virtually unchanged for many years. They have resulted in the situation referred to as the twin peaks effect. The higher risk businesses in the LA sector are proactively inspected and the lower risk HSE businesses are not, even though some may employ higher risk activities. However, it is recognised that what may, for example, be appropriate in an Island Council may not be feasible in a large city or vice versa, and any consideration of the so called 'twin peaks' effect needs to take this into account. Reallocation of premises from the HSE sector to the LA sector would have to be accompanied by a commensurate transfer of resources to local authorities. An alternative to this approach would be supporting those local authorities who wish to volunteer to take on additional responsibilities and have the capacity to do so There are well tested mechanisms in place for doing this such as sector specific joint HSE/LA projects, joint warranting etc. Yes, there is too much legislation most of which overlaps. The judgment by the European Court of Justice in the case of European Commission vs United Kingdom (Case C-127/05) www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2007/C12705.html indicates that most of the regulations (initially made by a previous Conservative administration) made in Great Britain and Northern Ireland to implement successive EC health and safety directives have been unnecessary. The judgment upheld the principle of reasonable practicability. It follows that Directives could be implemented by providing ACoPs and/or guidance to support the key duties in the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The plethora of health and safety legislation makes it difficult for duty holders to understand the full range of requirements less legislation would be likely to result in better compliance and thence fewer accidents and occupational ill health.

Lfstedt review of health and safety legislation the results of a survey of IOSH members views 23

Comment supplied Arguably some decisions related to tree safety management see www.treeworks.co.uk/downloads/ publications/TOWARDS_REASONABLE_TREE_RISK_DECISION_MAKING_NF_060907.pdf. Gangmasters Licensing Act: I know of one case where GLA threatened a forestry consultant with prosecution. Having made recommendations for forestry work to be carried out, the client asked if he knew of a contractor who would do the work. The consultant mentioned a contractor as a courtesy. He did not receive a fee for this. GLA threatened prosecution, although I do not know if the case came to court. There used to be a depth level which required measures for support in excavations. This was removed and replaced with a term very open to interpretation. I have been witness to a safety person demanding a 300mm hole to have support because his interpretation differed from all others. There was no safety risk but a lot of time and effort was required, including cost. Also there should be one prequalification scheme in construction CDM has tried to help this area but a more robust approach is needed. Total: 13 comments

Table 21 continued

The mixed nature of this question, covering the three areas of unreasonable outcomes, inappropriate litigation and compensation provides a more varied response than for previous questions. The question is very leading, linking compensation with the terms unreasonable and inappropriate, and does not provide a definition of what is meant by either of these terms. This point is noted by a respondent who notes: This question is far too wide. What is an unreasonable outcome? The outcome can largely depend on the approach taken by individual businesses. Inappropriate litigation and compensation are not the result of regulations but of the civil process; whatever regulations you have in place civil action can still take place. Where respondents have supplied general comments around the areas addressed in the question, some themes can be distinguished. The most cited area is that of compensation and the debates around the existence or otherwise of a compensation culture. 31 respondents feel that compensation is driving inappropriate litigation resulting in unreasonable outcomes, not the regulations or ACoPs themselves. Other issues mentioned include: the role of insurers who are seen as fostering the over-complication of the risk assessment process which creates unnecessary bureaucracy the application and enforcement of section 7 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 in relation to employee responsibility the representation and reporting of health and safety by the media e.g. fuelling negative perceptions (see Table 22).
Number of respondents 31 22 14 11 9 5 Table 22 Areas discussed in relation to unreasonable outcomes, or to inappropriate litigation and compensation

Area discussed Compensation culture Unreasonable outcomes Role of insurers Inappropriate litigation Employee responsibility Media representation

24 Lfstedt review of health and safety legislation the results of a survey of IOSH members views

Q13. Are there any lessons that can be learned from the way other EU countries have approached the regulation of health and safety, in terms of (a) their overall approach and (b) regulating for particular risks or hazards?
A total of 176 respondents (77 per cent) supplied a response to this question. Of these, 82 per cent (n = 144) did not supply information on lessons that could be learnt from other EU countries (see Table 23). The largest group of these respondents felt that the UK was leading the way in Europe and was an exemplar to other EU countries. As such it did not have lessons to learn about health and safety from other EU countries. The general perception of this group is that EU standards are lower or do not exist.
Table 23 Respondents views on EU approaches Number of respondents 4 59 53 28 144 % of respondents 3 41 37 19 100

Types of comment Yes, the UK can learn from other EU countries No, the UK has nothing to learn from other EU countries Dont know General or miscellaneous comments Total

The remaining 32 respondents (18 per cent) provided comments on their experience of the overall approach and/or the regulation of particular risks or hazards in the EU (see Table 24).
Table 24 Approach and regulating for risks in EU countries EU countries lessons learnt Overall approach Regulating for particular risks or hazards Number of respondents 31 9

In terms of overall approach, it is important to bear in mind that regulatory regimes and societal concerns differ across the EU states, a point acknowledged by a respondent who states: Comparisons with other EU countries can be drawn from trailing measures such as accident frequency rates. Clearly, all EU countries are covered by the EU Directives. How these are implemented varies widely from one country to another, and cannot be viewed in isolation from the wider societal attitudes that are prevalent in the member states. The comments provided on this area are generalised, based on individual perception and provide no details of when the experiences described occurred. This makes it difficult to draw direct comparison with the UK regime for the purposes of learning lessons. Comments on overall approach are summarised in Figure 2.
Figure 2 Comments on overall approach

Overall approach

The UK takes the legislation seriously, when the rest of Europe appears to take a more casual approach to implementation and enforcement A far more relaxed approach to risk Legislation in Europe is regarded as advisory Enforcement in many countries seems to be light More onus on the employee to work safely Use of roving safety representatives Prescriptive legislation in the EU encourages employers to do the minimum Fewer pieces of legislation but in simpler language and they cover more areas Prevention of harm approach to legislation, revision of all acts and regulations accordingly Directives transposed directly into law

Lfstedt review of health and safety legislation the results of a survey of IOSH members views 25

Respondents who commented on their experiences working in particular EU states and the approaches they found, provided both positive and negative feedback. Their comments on the 11 countries referenced are presented in Table 25.
Country Belgium Denmark Comment supplied My own travels in Belgium, Netherlands, Germany and Italy have always provided ample examples of unsafe working practices and places of work. A few years ago the EU Health and Safety Commission undertook a performance comparison between the member states based on fatal accident rates. The UK, Denmark and Sweden were the best performers with no statistical differences between the three. However, having worked closely with the Danes, and to a lesser extent the Swedes, it is clear that these two countries put much less effort than ourselves, and therefore incur less costs, but achieve broadly the same results. France [has] a greater focus on health, which this country will need to look at more closely if we are to protect an ageing working population. ... the French ignore all the rules the EC has introduced. Yes the French have a far more relaxed approach to risk, we have become risk adverse, stifling many activities. ... legislation in France and much of Europe is regarded as advisory. Risk assessments and method statements are woefully inadequate... The attitude expressed by many suppliers is insurance is better than prevention. There could be something learned from France. They take the Directives as written and transpose them straight into law. Germany The Germans are just starting to understand what hazards are and how to conduct risks assessments. In German in one clients premises we have wet air conditioning units (with drip trays) placed above 450 volt electrical panels. Our EU operations are often following UK procedures as there are no standards. Risk assessments and method statements are woefully inadequate. Hungary I recently looked into Hungarian legislation as part of a construction project. The legislation was very similar to ours, but much of it was listed within one document. A one stop shop in effect in order to determine legal duty. This would greatly help smaller business without the resource of a health and safety professional to understand their basic legal obligations without having to trawl through rafts of regulations. I have experience of working in Belgium, Spain and Ireland and I believe that their approach is less 'policemen-like and puts more onus on the employee to work safely. ... during the late nineties the Irish were introducing their noise legislation. They carried out site visits and issued on the spot fines for breaches, within a very short period every building site in Ireland was compliant! Simple but effective! Ireland seems to have taken a better approach to the structure of implementing the six pack. One example is the Irish Chemicals Act which covers much of UK COSHH but in a less cumbersome way. Conversely there are parts of the Irish H&S system which are burdensome compared to UK! I believe the Republic of Ireland has a better system whereby you identify hazards and risks first and then put in place your policy and procedures to manage those risks. Ireland tends simply to replicate the wording of EU Directives in its own regulations whereas the UK adopts a more tailored and considered approach. More prescriptive advice would have greater effect, eg the HSA approach to agriculture: www.iosh.co.uk/groups/rural_industries_group/group_articles/health_and_safety_ regulation_i.aspx Table 25 EU countries cited with reference to their approach to and regulation of particular risks and hazards

France

Ireland

26 Lfstedt review of health and safety legislation the results of a survey of IOSH members views

Table 25 continued

Country Luxembourg

Comment supplied Luxembourg, Spain, Portugal have appalling workplace injury statistics for the size of the working populations. I am currently working in Luxembourg, France and Germany. Risk assessments and method statements are woefully inadequate.

Netherlands

The Netherlands have fewer pieces of legislation but they are in a simpler language and cover more things in the one act. Our HASAW Act is very technical and non-professionals have difficulty understanding it the Working Conditions Act in the Netherlands covers many pieces of legislation and is written in an easier language. They have higher accident rates and fatalities. Dutch have a confusing legislative way, but satisfactory to the Dutch freedom and way of life

Scandinavia Spain Sweden

Some are very good at looking after their workforce and implementing legislation (Scandinavia springs to mind) From what I have seen in Spain particularly they just seem to pay lip service to the regs. Yes, the way Sweden using the trade union safety representatives (roving reps) is an excellent use of resources.

Q14 Can you provide evidence that the requirements of EU Directives have or have not been unnecessarily enhanced (gold plated) when incorporated into UK health and safety regulation?
A total of 154 respondents (68 per cent) provided data for this question. Overall, the majority of the respondents (63 per cent) could not provide evidence of gold plating and did not think this had happened in relation to UK health and safety legislation (see Table 26). Only 10 per cent of those answering this question gave examples they felt were of gold plating, and 5 per cent gave examples of the reverse.
Types of comment Yes No Not sure/no comment General or miscellaneous comments Total Number of respondents 2 97 12 27 138

Table 26 Respondents views of gold plating in UK legislation

Seven respondents commented that the reverse had been the case and the UK has failed to fully implement EU requirements in the case of the following Directives: Directive 90/394/EEC on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens at work and extending it to mutagens (4 respondents) Directive 89/391, the OSH Framework Directive, in relation to the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations Temporary or Mobile Construction Sites (TMCS) Directive (92/57/EEC), in relation to the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations Directive 2002/14/EC on establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community.

Five respondents reported the view that it is the interpretation of legislation by insurers that has resulted in some organisations gold plating requirements. An example of this view is: As a health & safety practitioner who has carried out inspection, enforcement guidance and advice roles I do not believe the regulations are gold plated. Indeed they tend to be simple to follow. The gold plating tends to come from the organisations interpreting them, such as insurance companies and legal firms.

Lfstedt review of health and safety legislation the results of a survey of IOSH members views 27

A further 41 respondents were not sure, supplied general comments or simply said yes. These latter two groups did not supply evidence. The remaining 16 respondents provided the titles of 9 Directives or pieces of legislation which they felt had been gold plated. Of these the Working Time Regulations 1998 (as amended) and the Work at Height Regulations 2005 were the most cited (see Table 27).
Number of respondents 5 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 Table 27 EU Directives and legislation that respondents feel have been gold plated

Title Working Time Regulations 1998 (as amended) Work at Height Regulations 2005 Six-pack Regulations Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2000 (as amended) Physical Agents (Noise) Directive Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (as amended) Manufacture and Storage of Explosives and the Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) (Amendment and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2007

Q15 Does health and safety law suitably place responsibility in an appropriate way on those that create risk? If not what changes would be required?
A total of 198 respondents (87 per cent) supplied data in response to this question. Of these, 93 respondents (47 per cent) felt that health and safety law suitably and appropriately places responsibility on those that create risk. Twenty-eight respondents (14 per cent) provided general comments or did not know (see Table 28).
Number of respondents 93 77 4 24 198 % of respondents 47 39 2 12 100 Table 28 Respondents views on responsibility and the law

Types of comment Yes No Dont know General or miscellaneous comments Total

Seventy-seven respondents (39 per cent) said no to this question and of these 64 went on to suggest areas where changes could be adopted (see Table 29). Sixty-four respondents (32 per cent of respondents to this question) suggested one or more areas where they felt changes to health and safety law would result in a more suitable and appropriate allocation of responsibility to those that create risk. The largest group of respondents (n = 29) felt that there should be greater management responsibility, especially within senior management, more clarity in the area of directors duties and that these duties should be a legal requirement. (table 29) Twenty-six respondents highlighted the area of employee duties and felt that this was an area where strengthening legal responsibilities and enforcing them could result in a more equitable distribution of responsibilities.

28 Lfstedt review of health and safety legislation the results of a survey of IOSH members views

Table 29 Changes to the law suggested by respondents

Area Directors duties Employees duties Stronger enforcement Subcontractors Emergency services Targeted enforcement

Number of respondents 29 26 15 3 2 2

Fifteen respondents felt that health and safety law suffered from lack of enforcement and that this results in the failure to allocate responsibility for risk in a suitable and appropriate manner. These respondents would like to see much stronger enforcement of existing law, but note that this would have resource implications for the regulator. For example: Criticism is sometimes levelled at enforcing authorities on few prosecutions of individuals despite the legal power to do so. This is often due to resource issues rather than any other reason. Overall, the majority of respondents to this question felt health and safety law works effectively to allocate responsibility to those that create the risks. Many respondents cite section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 as being effective, but a large group feel that health and safety law might benefit from improvement by making directors duties a legal requirement, strengthening employee duties and implementing stronger enforcement.

Q16 Do you have any other comments on the Lfstedt review of health and safety legislation?
A total of 173 respondents (76 per cent) provided other comments in response to this question. Of these, 120 comments fell into the categories of no, general or miscellaneous, positive or negative. The general comments reiterated points made in relation to other questions. The positive commentators felt the review would be helpful and could offer a positive contribution to the health and safety debate, whereas negative commentators felt the review was unnecessary and costly (see Table 30).
Table 30 Types of other comments provided Number of Examples respondents 67 19 7 27 120 I think its timely and hope that it will be balanced and sensible Seems unnecessary It is not the law that is the issue; it is how it is interpreted by solicitors and insurance companies that is the real problem

Types of comment No Positive comments Negative comments General or miscellaneous comments Total

Fifty-six respondents provided thoughts on the review, which ranged from suggesting areas for the review to examine to concerns about the adverse consequences the review may have on health and safety, discussion of the role of the Health and Safety Executive and scepticism, given the scale of the review, that it can be completed within the timescales stated (see Table 31).

Lfstedt review of health and safety legislation the results of a survey of IOSH members views 29

Other comments received on the Lfstedt review Areas for the review Adverse consequences Health and Safety Executive Timescale Total

Number of respondents 29 26 15 3 56

Table 31 Other comments

The comments provided by the 29 respondents who suggested a direction the review might take, covered the areas of goals and legislation. Areas suggested for the review include:

Goals
ensure regulatory effectiveness, not dilution, to keep standards high encourage the positive representation of health and safety and correct misconceptions listen to all stakeholders equally tackle the claims culture.

Legislation
a broad set of regulations with sector-specific ACoPs a review of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 a standard format for regulations improved guidance in plain English a review of the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 ensure more robust enforcement improve risk education by incorporating health and safety into the curriculum.

References
1 Department for work and Pensions (2011) The Lfstedt review: An independent review of health and safety legislation terms of reference. www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/lofstedt-tor.pdf. Accessed on 31 May 2011. Department for work and Pensions (2011) The Lfstedt review: An independent review of health and safety legislation call for evidence. www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/lofstedt-call-forevidence.pdf. Accessed on 31 May 2011.

Acknowledgments
IOSH would like to thank all those who took their time to participate in this survey for their valuable input. Report prepared by Murray Clark, IOSH Research and Technical Officer, 1 August 2011.

30 Lfstedt review of health and safety legislation the results of a survey of IOSH members views

Appendix A: Text of the email sent to all UK IOSH members introducing the survey
Dear Member, The much talked-about review of health and safety regulation recommended by Lord Young last October has now been launched by the DWP, led by Professor Ragnar Lfstedt, and we need your help to compile an IOSH submission of evidence, please. You can assist us by sharing your experience and evidence in answer to the review questions via our on-line survey, which is accessible at www.safesurveys.info/snap/mc/b/_lofstedt_review.htm. Dont worry if you cant answer all the questions, just answer those you can and submit your response to us by 24 June 2011. Please remember that this is a call for evidence, so we need to provide hard facts, backed by evidence wherever possible, as well as the specifics of any suggested improvements. Im sure youll agree that its important the health and safety profession makes its voice heard in this review and I hope you are able to contribute. Thank you for your support. Richard Jones Head of Policy and Public Affairs

IOSH The Grange Highfield Drive Wigston Leicestershire LE18 1NN UK t +44 (0)116 257 3100 f +44 (0)116 257 3101 www.iosh.co.uk

IOSH is the Chartered body for health and safety professionals. With more than 39,500 members in 85 countries, were the worlds largest professional health and safety organisation. We set standards, and support, develop and connect our members with resources, guidance, events and training. Were the voice of the profession, and campaign on issues that affect millions of working people. IOSH was founded in 1945 and is a registered charity with international NGO status.

Institution of Occupational Safety and Health Founded 1945 Incorporated by Royal Charter 2003 Registered charity 1096790

AC/11238/MC/010811/PDF