A return to Victorian standards

BobQ

An amendment to Section 47 of the Health and Safety Work Act 1974, has been added to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill at the eleventh hour. The amendment would mean:

• Employers would no longer have a strict liability for the health and safety of their workers, for the first time since 1898.
• Workers could not rely on an employer's breach of health and safety law to win a personal injury claim, they would have to provide proof of negligence.
• Enforcement of health and safety law would be increasingly left up to a significantly weakened and less effective Health and Safety Executive.
• Employers will increasingly hide behind the defence that complying to health and safety regulations was not "reasonably practicable".

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/41086

I can see the argument that some people take H&S too far, but is this right?

Rinoa

BobQ wrote: »

I can see the argument that some people take H&S too far, but is this right?

Hmmm, it had got to the point where workers almost wanted an accident so they could claim the very substantial compensation.

This new law will also mean less remuneration for accident lawyers, so no bad thing.

PaulF81

What does the actual ammendment state? I am heavily involved in risk management, without seeing the actual section ammendment, not the blurb in an epetition which is subjective, I can't answer.

PaulF81

It does not change I believe the requirement of a risk in the workplace to be both tolerable and ALARP.

Reasonability of an issue remains; if an employer were to ignore a risk they could be reasonably expected to budget against (using defined cost for single or multiple party injury or death).

In short:

Deciding what is reasonably practicable to control risks involves the exercise
of judgement. Where dutyholders must control risks so far as is reasonably practicable, enforcing authorities considering protective measures taken by dutyholders must take account of the degree of risk on the one hand, and on the other the sacrifice, whether in money, time or trouble, involved in the measures necessary to avert the risk. Unless it can be shown that there is gross disproportion between these factors and that the risk is insignificant in relation to the cost, the dutyholder must take measures and incur costs to reduce the risk.

Pretty much covers current legal guidance. From the hse.

PaulF81

Note that they must reduce risk; this is where tolerable and alarp principles are applied. You can never reduce risk to 0 without stopping doing what you are doing altogether.

For example, the nuclear industry is assessed against standards with many times the safety factors levied in aviation (my field). Doesn't mean a nuclear accident won't happen; the statistical probability when assessed is almost impossible however. The cost to reduce the risk to zero is always infinite.

I would agree with rinoa. This will reduce the turnover of ambulance chasers whilst still ensuring reckless business owners can still be prosecuted for corporate manslaughter.

BobQ

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/LLN-2012-038

This is an explanation of the changes going through at present.

PaulF81

BobQ wrote: »

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/LLN-2012-038

This is an explanation of the changes going through at present.

As someone whose business is risk management (consultancy and practiced in te workplace)

This I wholly agree with. Slips trips and falls is not health and safety. It's ambulance chasing. Stopping the next Chernobyl, exon Valdez or bhopal is what it's about.

Some health and safety at work regulations currently imposed an automatic liability on employers. This strict liability made them liable to pay compensation to employees injured or made ill by their work despite all reasonable steps having been taken to protect them from harm. By removing this strict liability, proof of negligence on the part of the employer would be necessary to proceed with a claim, ensuring a reasonableness defence which would prevent businesses who had taken every reasonable precaution from being prosecuted for a technical breach.

Sounds like an ambulance chaser petition to me

BobQ

PaulF81 wrote: »

As someone whose business is risk management (consultancy and practiced in te workplace)

This I wholly agree with. Slips trips and falls is not health and safety. It's ambulance chasing. Stopping the next Chernobyl, exon Valdez or bhopal is what it's about.

I agree that H&S should be about stopping serious injury.

As I understand this change, an employee who sufferred serious injury will have no civil remedy against being injured at work unless employer negligence can be proven.

The fact that the employer breaks statutory H&S regulations and (say) fails to supply adequate protective equipment is not enough any more.

This seems more than cutting red tape.

PaulF81

The h&s executive can always come in and investigate on the governments behalf. It won't be just down to the employee to provide proof beyond reasonable doubt;if there is a good reason to do so the h&s executive will investigate and prosecute as necessary. And if appropriate, compensation paid.

grizzly1911

PaulF81 wrote: »

As someone whose business is risk management (consultancy and practiced in te workplace)

This I wholly agree with. Slips trips and falls is not health and safety. It's ambulance chasing. Stopping the next Chernobyl, exon Valdez or bhopal is what it's about.

There is a big difference between Risk Management for major incidents, high risk safety requirements and that for day to day health and safety.

I agree with you that you cannot wholly mitigate the risk unless you stop doing the activity completely.

The individual has a duty of care to themselves for both the day to day stuff as well as following defined safety procedure, under current legislation.

Far from getting rid of ambulance chasers this seems to just open up a different market for the lawyers.

paulmapp8306

BobQ wrote: »

As I understand this change, an employee who sufferred serious injury will have no civil remedy against being injured at work unless employer negligence can be proven.

The fact that the employer breaks statutory H&S regulations and (say) fails to supply adequate protective equipment is not enough any more.

This seems more than cutting red tape.

The first part is how it should be. If the employer isnt negligent then the injury is due to the employee - either disregarding the safety procedures put in place, or just being careless then blaming the employer.

The second part surly falls in with the first. If PPE is not provided where it should be then the employer is neglegent in his provision. If PPE is provided and training give, the fact that the employee didnt use it is his own fault - whatever that reason.

In fact if training is given, even if PPE ISNT provided, its still arguably the employees fault. His training teaches him he must wear the PPE for that job. The PPE isnt provided - so he SHOULD refuse the job until it is - not do the job then claim against the employer from non provision if something happens.

There is - as always - a fine line, but the new legislation moves that line more to the center (where is should be) than firmly in the employers court, where it often is at present.