CWU Condemns Proposed RIDDOR Changes

The Union has written to all its Branches advising the details of the RIDDOR consultation exercise and the proposed changes as a result of Lord Young's so-called Health & Safety Review.

Writing in letter to branches LTB116/11, Dave Joyce National Health, Safety and Environment Officer says:

"The CWU Health, Safety and Environment Department are extremely concerned that the Young report recommends a weakening of the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR).

Research shows that only 32% of the reportable injuries suffered by workers and 12% by the self-employed are not properly recorded with the HSE under RIDDOR and the legislation isn't effectively enforced which is why so many employers ignore it. When injuries are not properly recorded it makes it difficult to accurately assess the risks workers face and difficult for enforcers to protect them.

Changing the accident reporting criteria from 3 days to 7 days will only serve to take a huge number of injuries out of the official statistics and erode standards further. Rather than recommending weakening the regulations, Lord Young should have examined how the existing rules can be strengthened and adequately enforced. RIDDOR is one of the most important sources of information for the enforcing authorities."

Meanwhile, the TUC's Brendan Barber told TUC Risks this weekend that:

“This proposal to change the reporting requirement to over seven days makes no sense and will reduce the ability of employers to learn the lesson from injuries that have occurred. It is also clear that any change would have a significant effect on the ability of regulators to investigate incidents, yet the consultation paper ignores this, and instead looks only at the 'savings' to employers. It also ignores the fact that employers will still be required to record all incidents that occur over three days."

He added: "When proposals for changing health and safety law are made without any reference to the benefit to either the health or safety of workers, it is clear there is something very wrong with the way that the government sees regulation.”

The TUC response to the consultation document is quite blunt:

" The TUC is concerned that the current proposals did not arise from any desire to improve health and safety within Britain, but from a government decision to implement the recommendations of the Young review, which was not intended to improve the health and safety regime, but  which stated “‘The aim is to free businesses from unnecessary bureaucratic burdens and the fear of having to pay out unjustified damages claims and legal fees. Above all it means applying common sense not just to compensation but to everyday decisions once again.”

It goes even further:

"Even the questions illustrate that the intention of the proposal is simply to benefit business. Question 2 asks only about the advantages to business, there is no corresponding question that asks about the advantage to workers (perhaps not surprising as there are clearly none). Question 3 states that the Impact Assessment “focuses on the calculation of costs and benefits of the proposal to both businesses and Local Authorities”, rather than the impact on the health of workers."

The TUC response is available to download from the E-Library Database using the search word RIDDOR.

The NW BTU H&S Co-ord urges all those involved in health and safety to respond to this consultation exercise over RIDDOR and to also lobby their MPs with regard to the attacks on health and safety legilsation and on workers rights generally.

Source: TUC / CWU

Designed, Hosted and Maintained by Union Safety Services