The de-regulated Chancellor

pdf version (what's that?)

 Now it's the de-regulated Chancellor

In May, Gordon Brown, Chancellor of the Exchequer, gave a speech to business leaders that promised an even more de-regulated employment market than the one we currently have. It also raised the spectre of even less inspections and enforcement from the UK's safety police than the dismally inadequate regime currently in place. HM Treasury called this event the launch of "a Better Regulation Action Plan to boost flexibility and enterprise."

Mr Brown himself referred to a risk based approach to regulation. He said: "In a risk based approach there is no inspection without justification, no form filling without justification, and no information requirements without justification. Not just a light touch but a limited touch. Instead of routine regulation attempting to cover all, we adopt a risk based approach which targets only the necessary few."

Mr Brown also said: "Under the old regulatory model - which started in Victorian times - the implicit principle has been to inspect all premises, procedures and practices, irrespective of known risks or past results. Under this model, everyone was inspected continuously, information demanded wholesale, and forms filled in at all times, the only barrier being a lack of regulatory resources."

The business world supported the Chancellor but demanded more. The Institute of Directors (IoD) said its members would be able to supply plenty of candidates for the Government's cull of regulations, but that a more root-and-branch approach was required. James Walsh, Head of Regulatory Affairs at the IoD, said: "The Chancellor should be using an axe rather than a scalpel as he sets about his task of cutting up red tape." CBI Deputy Director-General John Cridland said: "The Government must stem the red tape tide and make the regulatory environment more business-friendly. There is a pressing need for regulations to be cut-back and simplified."

But with closer inspection the model given by Mr Brown of the "old way" bears little resemblance to what has really been going on in Britain's workplaces. The reality is that most workplaces have not been inspected by the Health and Safety Executive or the local authority's Environmental Health Department - ever. Nor are they likely to be, even if there has been a reportable incident there. With the current inspections rates meaning the likelihood of an inspector turning up once every 15-20 years and accident rates remaining persistently high it's difficult to see where the "burden on business" really lies. On top of that, recent HSE "blitzes" have been criticised because inspectors have been inspecting on one topic, such as falls from height. Safety reps have also criticised the enforcement of paperwork and not what is going on in the workplace by the authorities.

As to Mr Brown's "risk based approach", the number one workplace health concern is stress, with masses of evidence to back up the damage this is causing workers and the economy. A "risk based approach" would ensure that regulations were in place and active enforcement was happening. This clearly didn't happen when the HSC had the chance to do so recently. Instead we see the HSE doing everything but regulate and enforce.

Or take construction, a "risk based approach" would see large numbers of inspectors enforcing the law in one of our most dangerous industries rather than the pitifully few, overworked number we currently have working to an increasingly weakened enforcement regime.

Or should a "risk based approach" to improving very many aspects of occupational health and safety mean the revitalising of the points made in government's now mainly shelved "Revitalising health and safety" project ? This looks ever more unlikely.

It is difficult to see what more is going on here than adopting the rabid rhetoric of business to justify actions that in reality are not those that should be taken but those that suit the business agenda. Professor Michael Porter's study for the Department of Trade and Industry has already pointed out that the UK has the lowest level of product and labour market regulations in the OECD. Trade unions were quick to reply to the Chancellor and the de-regulators with the TUC calling business arguments about red tape a red-herring.

Paul Kenny, acting general secretary of the union GMB said: 'Any suggestion that we can build trust with employers who put profit and cutting corners before the rights and safety of workers is complete and utter nonsense. The road to the current legislation, which is totally inadequate, is littered with the broken bones, the blood and the bodies of workers killed by company negligence.' Kenny added: 'Mr Brown should go and talk to the widows and children and widowers of people killed and maimed by company mismanagement, by gross negligence of employers on health and safety'.

Bob Crow, general secretary of rail union RMT said: 'Gordon Brown is wrong in his neo-conservative belief that unregulated business will act responsibly and that reputation with customers and investors is more important to behaviour than regulation. Inquiries after all the recent major railway accidents have shown that the companies did act irresponsibly leaving many people dead. Railways are high risk and will only be safe if the risks are controlled and tightly regulated.'

At a recent open meeting of the HSC some of the Commissioners expressed their displeasure at the pressure on the Commission and HSE to give in to this business agenda. One Commissioner said: "We are regulators, that's what we do and we should be proud of it." The trade union side will need continued support if they are to maintain a position of strength as they resist the forces that are clearly building up outside.

For further information see : http://www.lhc.org.uk/members/pubs/newslet/82dha.htm

top of page

Resources page