1 / 18

Update on Löfstedt Review and Red Tape Challenge

Update on Löfstedt Review and Red Tape Challenge. Anthony Lees HSE Construction Policy Unit. Better regulation policy. Government better regulation strategy June 2010 – Lord Young review October 2010 – ‘Common Sense, Common Safety’ February 2011 – Ministerial Statement

kimberley-curry
Download Presentation

Update on Löfstedt Review and Red Tape Challenge

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Update on Löfstedt Review and Red Tape Challenge Anthony Lees HSE Construction Policy Unit

  2. Better regulation policy • Government better regulation strategy • June 2010 – Lord Young review • October 2010 – ‘Common Sense, Common Safety’ • February 2011 – Ministerial Statement • May 2011 – Löfstedt – call for evidence • November 2011 – Report and Government response

  3. Better regulation policy • April 2011 – Red Tape Challenge • Health and Safety theme • July 2011 – ‘spotlight’ period • 2012 – ‘Star Chamber’ process • Lofstedt and RTC implementation: 2011-2015?

  4. Löfstedt Report - themes • Specific revocations and consideration of further consolidation • Review of all ACoPs • Self-employed exemption • Civil liability and strict liability regulations • Improving quality and consistency of local authority enforcement • Influencing Europe to ensure legislation is risk-based

  5. Löfstedt recommendations – observations • HSE welcomes the report • Opportunity to improve regulation • Impact limited on higher risk sectors • Does not dilute standards • Some uncertainty over implications of future work

  6. Specific Revocations • Two tranches of specific revocations • 1st tranche – 7 Statutory Instruments - consultation closed • 2nd tranche – 14 Statutory instruments - consultation opens early April • Three construction-specific Regulations • Construction (Head Protection) Regulations 1989 • Notification of Conventional Tower Cranes Regulations 2010 + amendment

  7. Construction (Head Protection) Regulations 1989 - rationale • Regulations have largely delivered what they set out to • Head protection culturally-embedded in industry practice • Equivalent protection offered under PPE Regulations • Behaviours unlikely to change • Existing exemption retained

  8. Notification of Conventional Tower Cranes Regulations 2010 - rationale • Rationale for introduction • Target public assurance, not health and safety • Existing legislation provides adequate framework for assurance of integrity • Non-regulatory work has improved standards • Have not delivered expected benefits • Costs substantially higher than expected

  9. Specific revocations - process • Standard 12 week public consultation • Backed by impact assessments (form part of consultative document) • Subject to committee scrutiny and Ministerial approval • Any revocations expected later this year • Need to publicise revocations and implications – industry support welcome

  10. Review of ACoPs • ACoPs have basis in Robens Report • Intended to add precision in the context of goal-setting legislation • Wide support for ACoPs, but concerns over length and complexity • Focus should be on assisting SMEs

  11. Review of ACoPs • Review willl determine whhether each ACoP: • Is still required • Gives unambiguous guidance about what is required • Is up to date • Is presented in the most apropriate way • CDM ACoP outwith • Timings

  12. Self-employed exemption • Specific recommendation in Löfstedt • Cannot apply to construction work due to Directive basis of CDM • Intended to apply to low-risk activities • Explicitly will not apply to construction

  13. Civil liability and strict liability requirements • Löfsted concern over extent of right of civil action under regulations: fear of civil action provides a perverse incentive to employers • Pre-action protocols (‘Woolf lists’) • Strict liability • Use of pre-disclosure lists to be restated and clarified • Strict liability to be examined and either tempered by SFAIRP, or right to civil action restricted

  14. Other specific recommendations • CDM • Challenge Panel(s) • Work at Height Regulations 2005

  15. Löfstedt: CDM 2007 recommendation • Löfstedt said little about CDM – he was aware of the review • Effectively recommended that HSE should now publish the CDM evaluation report

  16. Challenge Panels • Recommended an independent panel to allow challenge of decisions • HSE will form two panels • January 2012 – Independent Regulatory Challenge Panel • Later 2012 – ‘wider’ challenge panel

  17. Work at Height Regulations • Löfstedt recommended review of WAHR • Regulations are risk based, but poorly understood and applied – the ‘2m rule dilemma’ • Particularly an issue for SMEs • Elements of gold plating – eg stepladders • Ministerial interest in how WAHR is misapplied or burdensome • Construction fully played into review

  18. Red Tape Challenge • Comments made to RTC were considered by Löfstedt • Significant amount of discussion between departments and Ministers – ‘Star Chambers’ • Process described on RTC website • 3 meetings so far, more planned

More Related