Plans to cut health and safety red tape flawed

That is the note of caution sounded by the waste management sector in response to a call for evidence from the Lfstedt Review, which closes today (July 31).

Launched in March 2011, the independent review is being chaired by risk management specialist Professor Ragnar Lfstedt at the request of the Department for Work and Pensions.

It aims to determine the scope for consolidating, simplifying or abolishing regulation in a bid to support the governments growth agenda, cut red tape and reduce what it sees as a burden upon businesses.

However, the Environmental Services Association which represents waste management companies across the UK said this objective was flawed when it came to the waste management sector.

The ESAs members have been striving to improve their health and safety record in a sector where there is a certain level of inherent risk. Only last month, HSE figures showed that there was a significant year-on-year rise in the number of workers killed in the waste industry in 2010/11 (see letsrecycle.com story) although the ESA was at pains to point out that most of these did not involve an ESA member company.

In the ESAs response to the reviews call for evidence,its director of policy Matthew Farrow said: The reviews objective of reducing the volume of health and safety regulation is flawed in so far as it applies to the waste management sector.

We do not believe that the range of health and safety regulations create an unnecessary burden for the sector. On the contrary we believe they are important given the nature of the sector.

Mr Farrow pointed to an accident reduction charter which was agreed between the ESA and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in 2004 which demonstrated that this issue was of fundamental importance to the organisation.

Since the launch of our Charter, ESA’s Members have reduced accidents by nearly 55%. In 2010, accidents amongst ESA members were down 13.5% on 2009.

Clarity

Instead of focusing on reducing the volume of health and safety regulation, the ESA said it was keen for there to be more clarity of regulation.

It cited a case in 2000 where a post office employee sustained an injury when thrown from his bicycle as a result of a brake system failure. Even though the employer was not found to be negligent and it was accepted they had taken all reasonable care to implement a bicycle monitoring regime, the Court of Appeal still ruled that the employer had nonetheless breached its statutory duty to maintain safe and efficient work equipment.

Mr Farrow said: Where the Review should be focused instead is on the interpretation of legislation, particularly through the courts. Frivolous litigation creates a great burden on the sector than the volume of health and safety regulations.

The review is due to make recommendations to ministers by the end of October 2011.