The Independent Regulatory Challenge Panel

The Independent Regulatory Challenge Panel will look into complaints regarding advice given by HSE or LA inspectors about health and safety which you think is incorrect or goes beyond what is required to control the risk adequately.

The panel will consist of independent members who will have the competence and experience to assess advice that has been given on regulatory matters.

Before you raise an issue with the panel, you should have first tried to resolve the matter with the relevant HSE or LA inspector and their manager.

What to expect

Your issue will be put before the panel members who will review it thoroughly and inform you of its findings.

The panel will only consider cases from 30 June 2011 onwards and the outcome will be made available on the HSE website.

The panel’s role is advisory. The regulators will respect the independence of the panel and its advice and where appropriate take it onboard.

Contact the Panel

• The Independent Regulatory Challenge Panel

What if I am still not satisfied

If you are still not satisfied with the findings of the Independent Regulatory Panel, you can follow the existing complaints procedures including writing to the Chief Executive of HSE or the relevant Local Authority Chief Executive.

You can also write to your MP and, if necessary ask them to contact the Office of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to investigate cases relating to HSE.

For Local Authority matters, you can contact your local councillor and if necessary the Local Government Ombudsman.

CD238 - Proposals to revoke seven Statutory Instruments

This consultative document seeks views on the Health and Safety Executive's proposals to revoke six Regulations and one Order that have been identified as being redundant or that have been overtaken by more up-to-date Regulations. It is proposed that the following legislation be removed:

1. Anthrax Prevention Order 1971 etc (Revocation) Regulations 2005.
2. Employment Medical Advisory Service (Factories Act Orders etc Amendment) Order 1973
3. Health and Safety (Foundries etc) (Metrication) Regulations 1981
4. Non-ferrous Metals (Melting and Founding) Regulations 1962
5. Pottery (Health and Welfare) Special Regulations 1950
6. Pottery (Health etc) (Metrication) Regulations 1982
7. Regulations for use of locomotives and waggons on lines and sidings in or used in connection with premises under the Factory and Workshop Act 1901 (1906) (1906 No.679)

Disabled People - Key points to remember

This guidance is for you whether you are in work or looking for work.

Guidance is also provided for people doing risk assessments.

Health and safety is, on occasions, used as a false excuse to justify discriminating against disabled workers, HSE is committed to tackling this. A disability is a physical or mental impairment which has substantial and long term adverse effects on your ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

Health and safety and you

Everyone at work is responsible for health and safety: both employers and employees.

As an employee, you should:

• take reasonable care of your own health and safety and the health and safety of anyone who might be affected by what you are doing;
• co-operate with your employer on health and safety - for instance, follow rules, warnings or guidance;
• inform your employer or manager if you see something that might harm you or someone else.

If you have a disability or long-term health condition, you may need to tell your employer so you can:

• meet your health and safety responsibilities;
• work with your employer on any 'reasonable adjustments' that may be needed;
• work with your employer if a risk assessment is needed or if you have concerns about its results. If you have a safety representative, he or she may help.

Your employer should:

• assess and manage the work risks to everyone;
• include you in any health and safety information and training;
• involve you if they need to know whether your disability affects workplace health and safety and, if so, to what extent. This is so you can work together to find the best outcome, for instance 'reasonable adjustments' that overcome risk;
• involve others, such as specialists or your representative, if needed to understand the effects on workplace health and safety of your disability or long-term health condition;
• ask for your consent before approaching specialists or your GP (your doctor) who can advise on options for workplace adjustment;
• be sensitive and timely about making risk assessments if these are needed;
• make other, short-term arrangements to support you when delay cannot be helped (for instance, if your employer is waiting for an Access to Work grant);
• create a working environment that allows you to feel comfortable talking about your disability or long-term health condition;
• finally, employers should remember our lives can never be free from risks and they don't need to overprotect you. They should work with you to make sure adjustments are a help, not a hindrance.

Health and safety responsibilities of senior management

Strong and active health and safety leadership is important for three main reasons:

·         protecting the health and safety of employees or members of the public who may be affected by your business' activities

·         identifying health and safety as a key business risk

·         complying with health and safety legislation duties

Leading by example

You should follow a number of essential principles of health and safety leadership:

·         strong and active leadership from the top - visible, active commitment from the board, effective 'downward' communication systems and management structures, and good health and safety management integrated with business decisions

·         worker involvement - engaging the workforce in the promotion and achievement of safe and healthy conditions, effective 'upward' communication, and providing high quality training

·         assessment and review - identifying and managing health and safety risks, accessing and following competent advice, and monitoring, reporting and reviewing performance

Senior management should send out the message that risks to workers' health and safety need to be effectively managed, and that systems need to be in place and adequately resourced to manage these risks.

The senior management team should:

·         set the direction for effective health and safety management through a health and safety policy that becomes an integral part of business culture, values and performance standards

·         aim to protect people through management systems and practices that ensure risks are dealt with sensibly, responsibly and proportionately

·         ensure a system of monitoring is in place so that relevant incidents, events or breaches can be addressed

·         undertake formal reviews of health and safety performance at least once a year

The chief executive (or equivalent) can give the clearest indication of leadership, but some businesses find it useful to name a director as the health and safety 'champion'.

Legal responsibilities

As an employer you must comply with certain legal responsibilities. See the page in this guide on health and safety responsibilities of employers.

An individual as well as the business can be prosecuted if a health and safety offence is committed. Penalties include fines, imprisonment and disqualification. Individual directors are also potentially liable for other related offences, such as the common law offence of gross negligence manslaughter.

Government reveals first regulations for the chop post-Löfstedt

The Government has launched a consultation today (23 January) that represents the first step in its bid to reduce health and safety legislation by half over the next two years.

The consultation document (CD238) proposes the revocation of seven statutory instruments, which have been identified as being redundant, or that have been overtaken by up-to-date legislation. They are:

• The Anthrax Prevention Order 1971 etc (Revocation) Regulations 2005;
• The Employment Medical Advisory Service (Factories Act Orders etc Amendment) Order 1973;
• The Health and Safety (Foundries etc) (Metrication) Regulations 1981;
• Non-ferrous Metals (Melting and Founding) Regulations 1962;
• Pottery (Health and Welfare) Special Regulations 1950
• Pottery (Health etc) (Metrication) Regulations 1982
• Regulations for use of locomotives and wagons on lines and sidings in or used in connection with premises under the Factory and Workshop Act 1901 (1906) (1906 No.679)

The consultation is part of the HSE’s work to deliver the recommendation by Prof Ragnar Löfstedt in his recent review that sector-specific regulations be consolidated by April 2015.

However, the Government wants to go further than this, with Employment minister Chris Grayling telling the House of Commons today that its aim is to “reduce health and safety legislation by 50 per cent by 2014”.

The minister told the House: “Britain has the best record in Europe for preventing deaths and serious injuries in the workplace, but it also has the worst record for unnecessary red tape. This Government hopes that a simpler regulatory structure will contribute to a change in the bizarre decision-making that has been going on in the name of health and safety.”

However, when challenged by parliamentary colleagues to acknowledge that Prof Löfstedt’s recommendation was to consolidate regulation rather than remove it, and that reducing regulation could actually increase the cost of health and safety to society, the minister said the Government’s efforts are “all about not undermining what health and safety is really about and instead creating an easily understood system”.

He continued: “Prof Löfstedt identified which rules are complicated and we need to get back to a simple regime in order to protect people in the workplace.”

In response to Labour MP Kate Clark’s query as to why the Government is “peddling the myth” that the Löfstedt review deemed health and safety regulation to be excessive, Mr Grayling said it is not the Government that is at fault in this respect but “local authorities and middle managers”, who give out disproportionate advice.

To access the consultation document on the revocation of the seven instruments, visit www.hse.gov.uk/consult/live.htm The consultation ends on 12 March 2012

Fast-track claims process for workplace injuries planned

The Government says it is committed to introducing a streamlined process for handling employers’ liability and public liability claims, but needs to consult on the detail.

Issuing its response to a consultation paper, Solving disputes in the county courts, the Government intends to introduce a scheme to cover such claims as part of a package of measures to reform the civil-justice regime.

However, it also acknowledges that concerns in relation to issues of causation and contributory negligence – as expressed by Professor Löfstedt in his review of health and safety legislation – and the prime minister’s plans to reform the law on strict liability in civil health and safety cases mean that further consultation with stakeholders will be required to iron out the detail.

Any such scheme would, however, be informed by the experience of the road-traffic accident personal-injury (RTA PI) scheme, which was launched in April 2010. According to the Ministry of Justice, the Web-based scheme was set up to control legal costs, which are pre-set in a way that encourages early settlement.

The Government also plans to increase the financial limit of the RTA PI scheme from £10,000 to £25,000, following a full evaluation.

The Association of British Insurers (ABI) welcomed the Government’s announcement. Its director of general insurance, Nick Starling, said: “This is good news for thousands more claimants who will get their compensation much more quickly. In less than two years, evidence shows that this process is leading to the average pay-out time being more than halved, and lower legal costs.

“The Government must now press on with its wide-ranging and long-overdue reforms to civil litigation to ensure that steps, such as reducing fixed legal costs, lead to a more cost-efficient compensation system.”

However, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers warned the Government to slow down, and highlighted significant weaknesses in the RTA PI scheme.

The group’s president, David Bott, commented: “Policy-makers need to be aware that extending the current system for road-traffic accident cases, when that system still has serious technical and administrative flaws, will inevitably mean a further tilting of the playing field away from genuinely injured individuals in favour of big businesses and insurance companies, who are, actually, quite capable of looking after themselves.

“The Government must avoid over-focusing on needlework and forgetting the full tapestry. Too much change, too quickly, would be reckless, and we hope that, in its ongoing consultation, the Government gets its priorities right and puts the needs of injured people first.”

Workers exposed to asbestos at Redditch industrial unit

A Redditch freight firm, its managing director and a Birmingham contractor have been prosecuted for putting at least 20 people at risk of lung disease from asbestos fibres.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted Avon Freight Group Ltd (AFG) and its managing director Simon Poole, together with builder Ronald McPhee, over the exposure during work to convert the unit in Hemming Road, Redditch, into a new storage centre and headquarters for AFG.

AFG's architect commissioned a survey that identified asbestos insulation board in a number of partition walls, which the company wanted to demolish, and obtained estimates for its removal from three licensed contractors.

However, Worcester Crown Court heard Simon Poole instructed builder Ronald MacPhee, who was carrying out minor refurbishment work on the premises, to carry out the work even though he did not have a licence.

Mr MacPhee and two other workers removed almost 1.5 tonnes of asbestos insulation board from the site and disposed of it as asbestos cement, which can be removed without a licence, some time between 24 April and 16 May 2008.

Five months later, two other companies, who had been commissioned to demolish parts of the building and build an extension, discovered pieces of asbestos insulation board on the floor and still attached to retaining screws on the walls and alerted HSE.

Analysis of the area revealed that it was contaminated with asbestos fibres and required decontamination by a specialist licensed asbestos contractor.

HSE's investigation into the incident found that at least 20 people - including contract workers on the project, employees of AFG and workers for a tenant who had been using the site for storage, could have inhaled asbestos fibres during the five months.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Tariq Khan said:

"As a result of the appalling failings of the company and two individuals concerned, at least 20 people now have to live with the knowledge they have been exposed to asbestos.  This type of exposure could cause life-threatening illnesses in years to come but because it takes so long to develop, these people will be left with years of uncertainty.

"AFG and Simon Poole knew that asbestos insulation board was present in the walls and presumably knew they should get an appropriately qualified person to dispose of it, having received estimates from three properly licensed contractors.  Regardless of safety, they instructed Ronald MacPhee to remove it.

"Mr MacPhee should never have carried out the work, and his partial removal of the asbestos insulation board left the site in an even less safe state than before, as it was contaminated with fibres.

"Only licensed contractors are allowed to remove asbestos insulating board. If we find evidence of anyone who does not have a licence working with asbestos, we will not hesitate to bring enforcement action.

"It is no excuse to claim ignorance of the law, especially as there is a wealth of advice and information available from HSE free of charge."

Avon Freight Group Ltd, of Hemming Road, Redditch, pleaded guilty today to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £30,000 and ordered to pay £26,147 costs.

Simon Poole, of Streetly Lane, Sutton Coldfield, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £30,000 and ordered to pay £26,147 costs.

Ronald MacPhee, of West Avenue, Handsworth Wood, Birmingham, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £2,500 and ordered to pay £500 costs.

Asbestos is the biggest cause of occupational deaths in the UK, with an estimated 4,000 people dying every year from related diseases such as mesothelioma and lung cancer