iStock
A proposed new law aims to revoke EU-derived legislation, including life-saving protections, by December 2023, unless specifically kept or replaced – Richard Jones CFIOSH explains how OSH practitioners can get involved.
The vital importance of health and safety protections have again been raised in the UK House of Lords debate on the controversial Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (REUL), with more than 140 amendments tabled by peers so far, including on health and safety.
This proposed new law aims to sunset (revoke) EU-derived law, including health and safety regulations, by December 2023, unless specifically kept or replaced. And, worryingly, there seems to be an unwelcome backward step to the misguided ‘one-in, one-out’ style approach to new requirements (clause 15). This is dangerous and ill-judged for health and safety, where we need to ensure lifesaving protections are kept and updated, not weakened.
I would urge DWP to confirm a default position of retention of all OSH protections. In addition, there should be a simple exemption in the bill for health and safety law (similar to that for Financial Services), together with commitment to non-regression. Notably, Lord Benyon (government minister) has already confirmed that DEFRA will have a default position of retaining all environmental regulations, unless there is reason to repeal or reform.
Many suggestions for improvement have been made and discussed by parliamentarians, including:
- REUL should be dropped altogether and a new better designed Bill put forward (a precedent was cited for doing this)
- REUL should put exemptions and ‘non regression’ on the face of the Bill (which I think should include health and safety)
- REUL should drop its ‘no regulatory burden increase’ rule (and I believe new health and safety measures should not require an off-setting reduction in other protections)
- REUL should require health and safety impact assessments at least 90 days ahead of any proposed revocations (see ‘Protect our People’ campaign)
- REUL should take a ‘sector-based’ approach, instead of an ‘all-at-once’ one
- REUL should drop its ‘sunset’ clause or at least extend the deadlines
- Laws should only be reviewed when needed and in full consultation.
Baroness Bloomfield (for the government) has written seeking to explain the ‘regulatory burden’ rule from REUL clause 15(5). Concerningly, her letter said that the Bill doesn’t define regulatory burden, only giving examples, such as financial costs and administrative inconvenience, and that while single instruments could increase regulatory burden, this was only if off-set by decreases in the same regulatory area.
This government insistence on "off-setting" is disturbing for health and safety, particularly as regulatory burden is not defined and decisions will be purely at the discretion of ministers or devolved authorities. Health and safety should be excluded from this worrying and ill-conceived ‘one in, one out’ approach, so that concerns are addressed, including:
- the dangers of insisting that any new health and safety requirement is off-set by reduction in the same topic area (for example, if asbestos surveyors are going to require mandatory accreditation, as has been suggested, then this rule could mean that something else on this subject must be lessened, potentially increasing risks)
- suitable weight must always be given to health and safety measures that benefit many stakeholders (such as workers, good employers, taxpayers, communities), albeit they may add to the requirements on certain duty holders.
There is still time for health and safety professionals and others to seek improvements to this legislation, with report stage and third reading ahead. Get involved by contacting parliamentarians and supporting the Protect our People campaign, together with IOSH, RoSPA, and many others.
Richard Jones CFIOSH is former head of policy and regulatory engagement at IOSH.
