Remove Red Tape

General health and safety in the workplace

These regulations are designed to prevent death, injury and ill-health in the workplace including carrying out risk assessments and reporting major injuries.

You can find all 51 regulations that relate to general health and safety in the workplace here [opens in new window].

You can find all the regulations that relate to General health and safety in the workplace below to the left.

Tell us what you think should happen to these regulations and why, being specific where possible:

• Should we scrap them altogether?
• Could their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way (eg through a voluntary code?) How?
• Could they be reformed, simplified or merged? How?
• Can we reduce their bureaucracy through better implementation? How?
• Can we make their enforcement less burdensome? How?
• Should they be left as they are?

709 comments on “General health and safety in the workplace”

1. Andy on November 17, 2012 at 6:14 pm said:

   Notion to repeal part of section 7 of the HSWA 1974

   This states:
   1. An employee may commit an offence if he contravenes the general duties imposed by ss.7(a) and 7(b) by failing:
   •to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and other persons who may be affected by their acts or omissions at work (s.7(a)); and
   •as regards any duty or requirement imposed on his employer or any other person by or under any of the relevant statutory provisions, to co-operate with him so far as is necessary to enable that duty or requirement to be performed or complied with (s7(b)).

   The following argument applies only to 1st party breaches; to the individual, cited as ‘to take reasonable care for himself’ highlighted above, NOT where ones actions impact 3rd parties; the health and safety of another, cited as ‘and other persons who may be affected by their acts or omissions at work’ in that legislation, which should remain in existence.

   In the free world (outside of the workplace) individuals are allowed to peruse activities which include, but are by no means limited to; rock climbing, paragliding, rugby scrums, excessive alcohol drinking and eating, unqualified home electrical works; without qualification, solely, without any state intervention. Quite rightly the government simply guides people through educating them of the perils of such endeavours, that this maybe to the demise of the individual where it has that information, which it does as should, by publicising and make that available, after that it has done all that it should, in any decent free decent society. No man should be owned by the state.

   In the workplace however this liberty is infringed once the individual becomes an employee, where the employer also has to accept some liability.

   It is a reasonable assumption that once a new worker enters his new occupation that he may not be aware of the risks that he maybe exposed to, however quite rightly the employer must then educate that person as to those risks. The employee demonstrates that he understands this through either; testing, sitting a course or other accepted methods, which demonstrate that he has now accepted that. It is also reasonable to accept that the employee may also may forget that information, and so duty bound the employer reiterates that information at suitable intervals.

   Where the duty to provide that information and where that duty becomes a burden or an infringement of liberty exists when the individual does not comply with that, despite being provided with that information. The burden has now been shifted to the employer as he must now take action, such as retraining, disciplinary procedures, despite that information being presented and accepted as being acknowledged by the employee.

   This piece of legislation is regressive and infringes on those civil liberties as the employee has already accepted that information. Why should the state demand someone ‘to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself’ when this bares no resemblance to the free world, just because a man now exists in workplace. It has now also moved from the position of duty to burden for the employer. No man should be owned by the state, who now from that line with HSWA translates as ‘This man is the property of the UK government, he does not own his own mind, and should not be mutilated damaged or harmed, it is your duty to ensure that employer, and ensure you enforce that’

   Permission to revoke that line within section 7, which should now neither be enforceable by the HSE.Comment Tags: Breach of rights

   Reply ↓
2. Andy Nichols on November 5, 2012 at 10:28 pm said:

   The UK has become bogged down with Legislation and has forgotten Responsibility and Common Sense. The majority of Legislation should be converted to guidelines. This will reduce the burden of having to comply but provides a basis for common sense to be used and to which a scenario can be compared to see if reasonable care has been taken. The Highway Code is a good example. Legislation is too heavy handed and because of the fear of prosecution, it is often taken too far.

   As an example, I enter a supplier’s yard and am made to wear a hard hat. The only hazard from above are items on a forklift often working the other side of the yard. Most of the time I am bending over picking things up in one hand whilst holding the hard hat on with the other. If common sense was applied, I would leave the hard hat off, use both hands to lift thus avoiding overloading one arm and use my eyes and ears to monitor where the forklift is. If it comes near, then I move out the way. The chance of me not seeing/hearing it and the driver not seeing me is relatively low.

   The other problem with legislation is keeping track of it and the changes. To reduce the burden on all, and particularly small businesses, there should be a voluntary registration data base for those that should be notified of changes to the new guidelines (currently legislation). An electronic (email) notification can then be sent automatically of changes rather than having to keep checking. The data base must be set up with an agreement that the registration details will not be used to check who is complying thereby removing the “big brother watching feeling” and therefore encourage registration.

   The system should also be able to provide existing guidelines to new registrations and existing participants that expand into new areas. The guidelines should be written in plain English and not Government jargon.Comment Tags: replace legistration with guidelines and change auto-notification system.

   Reply ↓
   • David M on November 7, 2012 at 8:27 am said:

     Andy,

     Your comments seem to have been made off-hand with little evidence of research or prior knowledge.

     H&S legislation is suitably vague and non-prescriptive (see concepts on – reasonably practicable, forseeability). Without such legislation it would not be possible to bring criminal proceedings against those who expose others to unacceptable levels of risk.

     The existing Approved Codes of Practice (ACOPs) and HSG documents are the very Highway Code-type guidance publications that you are requesting.

     You give an example of entering a supplier’s yard and being forced to wear a hard hat; there is no law that requires such mandatory hard hat use, rather it should be the subject of a considered assessment of the risks i.e. risk assessment – (it sounds less bureaucratic in the former manner.) In this case the operator is displaying a poor understanding of the law and/or has adopted an overly cautious approach to attempt to mitigate all risk/avoid compensation claims.

     Regarding a voluntary registration database – local authorities should be able to provide you with the information you need and the HSE website allows you to subscribe to such information updates.

     The problem with H&S law is not what it is; rather the way it has been spun.Comment Tags: Health and Safety, Seeing Sense
   • Andy on November 21, 2012 at 5:27 pm said:

     The HSE are another socialist bureaucracy paid for by the tax payer, through coercion, who have a vested interest in their existence, why Cameron has not axed this department yet is a disgrace.
     The man who sacrifices his freedom at the expense of his security deserves neither.
     If you walk into a building yard you accept responsibility for yourself, you educate yourself of any precautions and provide your OWN, if this is an issue for you. Assuming you can read we should all accept this.
     H&S is a cost which is incurred by a business and can only ever be passed on to you, as an individual either working or as a consumer of their goods and services, without your consent, it should be left only to those who wish it, and it is done at that individuals own expense, at no one else expense, you accept your own risk and responsibility.
3. Keith Flockhart on October 25, 2012 at 12:49 pm said:

   I think that all Health and safety legislation whether it is the act itself or the regulations and the work that organisations need to do to comply with them should be excempt from Equalities empact assessments. H&S Legislation should be there to protect everyone not everyone AND specific equalities groups (we can injure everyone equally) obviously the type of people present can impact in some cases e.g. thinking of Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans for disabled persons BUT what would religion/sexual orientation have to do with General H&SComment Tags: equalities

   Reply ↓
4. Rob Williamson on October 17, 2012 at 10:42 am said:

   The present PAT (Portable Appliance Testing) requirement places a significant burden on business and, in reality, adds almost nothing to the safety or reliability of electrical equipment. It should be scrapped or reduced in frequency to once per five years or an annual visual inspection.
   The present requirement which includes a fairly meaningless electrical test and disassembly of plugs (from a bizarre logic) is applied by businesses who would already notice a really-defective item, and ignored by the cowboys who wouldn’t. Thousands of safe items are condemned because of ‘false positives’ or visual imperfections.
   The PAT must go!Comment Tags: PAT (Portable Appliance Testing)

   Reply ↓
   • Keith Flockhart on October 25, 2012 at 12:52 pm said:

     There is no legal requirement in place for doing PAT. there is a requriement to make sure equipment is safe.

     PAT Can be useful though if the reading recived when tested are monitored e.g. highlight gradual breakdown in insulation etc. being shown by decreased resistance readings.

     I do think that PAT can be overdone – embed “User checks” in the organisation so managers and employees give the equipment a “once over” before they use it – as they should with any item of equipment they are planning to use.
5. Christian Briant on October 9, 2012 at 1:08 pm said:

   HSE now operates a Fee for Intervention (FFI) cost recovery scheme, that will help cement even worse business realtions, we need more HSE inspections, not less but with a fat price tag!Comment Tags: FFI

   Reply ↓
6. Neil Dowie on October 6, 2012 at 2:17 pm said:

   Regulatory Reform ( Fire Safety) Order 2005:
   We are a small hotel that has a L5 M Specification Fire Detection System in place- serviced and maintained by a reputable contractor. This system enabled our local Fire

   Service to issue a Fire Certificate in 2004. A Fire Service Audit in 2007 didn’t trigger any instructions to radically enhance our detection capability.

   A recent Fire Service Audit resulted in a threat to issue an Enforcement Notice – under the Regutory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, unless a higher specification L2 –

   Fire Detection system be installed within three months.

   A thorough reading of “HM Govt Fire Risk Assessment – Sleeping Accommodation” fails to provide a definitive legal answer to the question as to whether an upgrade is

   enforceable by law. The documment does “suggest” that all hotels have an L2 system … that escape corridors ( and rooms leading on to them ) be fitted with detectors….

   but no where does the document state that ” all bedrooms be fitted with detection “.

   While we as responsible proprietors heed the advice and will endeavour to up-grade when possible, we would prefer to know whether, legally, we can defer until a time when

   demand and cash flow are more advantageous.

   ThanksComment Tags: Regulatory Reform ( Fire Safety) Order 2005 – Detection Specification

   Reply ↓
7. Dave Wheeler on October 3, 2012 at 11:38 am said:

   Much is done under the guise of Health & Safety for other than Health & Safety reasons, which creates a perception that it has gone too far! However if you look below the sensationalist headlines current H&S legislation and its application, is I believe among the best in the world, and to be aspired too. If applied as intended in a pragmatic manner, using competent practitioners, it achieves its end of saving lives and minimising unacceptable risks.
   If we go down the path of self-regulation, it would in my opinion, be a step backwards to satisfy current political agenda, and an erosion of a sound platform developed over time and based on sound principles. Notwithstanding this, there is always the need to revisit periodically to harmonise and eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy, but without diluting the effectiveness of the controls in place.Comment Tags: Hands off Safety Legislation protecting our Workers

   Reply ↓
8. A Wilson on September 27, 2012 at 10:23 am said:

   I believe that the press have an awful lot to answer for in relation to health and safety. Health and safety has been given a bad name by all the silly and unfounded stories about children playing conkers in safety goggles etc. The legislation is not at fault here but extremely poor risk assessments. That is the business/ organisations error and not the legislation. The legislation by and large is robust and easy to understand. Watering it down would be a mistake!!!! There is a reason health and safety has improved and that has been through regulation. There are good businesses out there interested in doing the right thing, there are also lots of poor ones who are willing to expose their staff to hazards which could kill, injury or make them extremely ill. Take a look at those countries with little regulation. Do we want to go back there.

   Reply ↓
9. john on September 2, 2012 at 6:38 pm said:

   It is important to understand that quiet is vital to our health. Noise pollution is real and is painful. Any policies that take away our mental health need to be looked at carefully. The alarms attached to vehicles because they are reversing are vile. It is now impossible to go for a quiet walk in the small, formerly peaceful town of Peebles. One cannot even go to the park or the wooded area to escape hearing alarms, all day.
   This is ill, unhealthy and a great loss. No more quiet.
   How must retired people and pensioners feel who bought property here and now are subjected to alarms going off every single day, simply because vehicles are reversing?
   This small town is now effectively as polluted as London. No peace equals no peace.
   All because vehicles are reversing.
   There is no proof that this even works: making a vehicle noisier to prevent an accident.
   The problem arises because the driver CANNOT SEE the person. It is not that th person cannot hear the vehicle or see it. The person CAN hear the vehicle already. The problem is purely A VISUAL one.
   Even if there was a rare rare case where making the vehicle louder stopped one accident, is it worth it at the cost of the loss of national quiet?
   It SEEMS like SOMETHING is being done by alarming cars, this seems like a purely political motive: to show you’re doing SOMETHING. What needs to be done is to improve the drivers visuals.
   It is a known fact that the C.I.A. use painful noises such as the ones nationally distributed on vehicles reversing, to torture people.
   People are now subjected to constant torture methods every day all to perhaps prevent one accident, but the method doesn’t even do that!!!!
   Can we please, please, please have some quiet back?
   And what to say of the workers who are subjected to this noise pollution?
   I cannot think of a more unhealthy and unsafe way to treat people by subjecting them to torture methods all day.Comment Tags: alarms, noise pollution, vehicle reversing alarms

   Reply ↓
10. SUSAN PETTICAN on July 5, 2012 at 2:52 pm said:

    I have just been informed that we are now going to be charged for any letters written to us if we are in breach of any health and safety matter on our premises at the rate of £124.00 per hour. Each time we have received a visit over the past ten years the HSE have always managed to find some small problem to [persecute us with despite being told by the local council that our builders yard is one of the best managed in the district. Surely to justify their position inspection officers will dish out letters to small business if they know they can charge £124.00 per hour for doing so. I thought that this Conservative/Liberal government had promised to cut red tape that is strangling smalla business such as ours. This is just another tax.

    Reply ↓
11. Mike Homersham on June 27, 2012 at 3:11 pm said:

    I am sure there is some historical reason for amendments being published the way they are (I don’t know what it is) but it does confuse matters and add to the total amount of legislation on the statute books, example: the Employers H&S Policy Statements (Exception)’75, and the Adventure Activities(Enforcing Authority)’04 are both only one paragraph! With 5 amendments to the Factories Act ’61, 4 to the O,S&RP ’63 and 3 to Information for Employees, surely there must be a better way to version control regulations. Some regulations have been superceded or amended so far it wouldn’t take much imagination to merge them into other legislation and totally repeal the old versions.

    I assume this may be how Prof. Lofstedt reached his 35% reduction conclusion (28/11/2011) but why have the Government taken this ‘independent review’ figure to mean 50% (02/05/12 Minister Grayling) and laterly 84% (22/05/2012 Chancellor Osbourne) of health and safety legislation will be ‘scrapped or improved’?

    I agree with Prof. Lofstedt that ‘there is no case for radically altering the current H&S legislation’ and ‘ the existing regulatory requirements are broadly right’ because there is a vast diversity of regulations covering a vast diversity of topics. I have read a number of articles relating to ‘common sense’ including Lord Youngs report. Health and safety is not an exact science but neither is it rocket science. The specific regulations explain what an employer needs to do in order to comply with the law and the employer looks at his undertaking and decides what needs to be done, sounds like common sense to me. Should common sense be added to the national curriculum so we can all attain a standardised qualification?

    Good health and safety management is the risk assessment of hazards and identification of controls to protect workers including the provision of a safe place and methods of work, information, instruction, training on the tasks and appropriate personal protective equipment. This is what the regulations set out to achieve.
    However, bad health and safety is not doing this to an adequte standard, (proportionate, suitable and sufficient, reasonably practicable etc.) or at all, which may lead to a (criminal law) prosecution or by overdoing it with mountains of paperwork, that nobody would have the time or inclanation to actually read, for the fear of (civil law) litigation.
    The majority of ‘no win, no fee’ merchants are hoping to scare business into an out of court settlement for their client, which may look affordable and then present a hugely inflated bill for their services.Comment Tags: Amendments, back to basics, version control

    Reply ↓