What will a coalition government mean for health and safety
policy?
25 May 2010
Before the General Election,
Connect asked all the major UK political parties what
their views were on five questions about health and safety
policy.
We published their responses in an Election Special issue of Connect.
As we now know, the election produced a hung Parliament and a
coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.
But what impact will this outcome have on the health and safety
profession?
To try to answer this question we looked at the answers the
different parties gave us in our Election Special, in order to see
where common ground exists and what disagreements there might be
within the Conservative / Liberal Democrat coalition when it comes
to health and safety policy.
How do they compare?
Neither party believes that there should be more health and
safety legislation. The Conservatives are “concerned that the
burden and impact of health and safety legislation has become too
great over the last decade” and the Liberal Democrats argue that
“there is not a need for more regulation of health and safety –
rather we need to look at what can be done to lighten the
regulatory burden.”
The Lib Dems suggest that “a commonsense approach” is the way
forward, which would place “responsibilities on those who should be
accountable” and penalise “those who seek to deny their
responsibilities”.
The Conservatives argue similarly, although they focus on
reducing the fear of penalties. They stress the need to establish
“the right balance” so that “individuals acting in good faith who
take reasonable actions will not be prosecuted” and they propose
consolidating current legislation in order to define civil
liability.
On the issue of enforcement, the parties take slightly differing
views.
The Conservatives argue that there is a need to reduce the
“burden of regulation” for “smaller, voluntary organisations” and
“‘Good Samaritans’ [ . . . ] acting in good faith”, although they
emphasise the need to safeguard “helpful regulations” to avoid
potential abuses of power by employers.
The Liberal Democrats take a stronger line, arguing that there
should be tougher fines for breaches in health and safety
regulation: “At the moment many of the fines are much too low.” The
Lib Dems would also like to see “a renewed emphasis on risk
assessment and efficient targeting of resources”.
On the issue of the so-called ‘compensation culture’, there is
broad agreement between the two parties that this culture exists
and is damaging.
The Conservatives argue that there should be “practical changes
in the law to [ . . . ] help bring an end to the culture of
excessive litigation” and the Liberal Democrats state that they
“support restrictions on the ambulance chasing compensation
culture.”
Both parties are vague about how this would be achieved.
On the issue of a national accreditation scheme for health and
safety consultants, the Liberal Democrats support IOSH’s proposals
for an online register of health and safety consultants. The
Conservatives decline to comment on this issue until Lord Young’s
review has reported – but in his speech at IOSH 10, Lord Young
suggested that IOSH should lobby for regulatory powers.
According to IOSH Chief Executive Rob Strange, Lord Young
“confused the position of IOSH, as a Chartered professional body
and charity having no statutory powers, with the law which, as it
stands, makes no requirement on health and safety practitioners to
be qualified.” However, Lord Young’s suggestion does seem to
indicate that the Conservatives are not hostile to some form of
regulation for the profession.
Finally, both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats agree
that health and safety is an important aspect of employment
training, but neither party gives any detail on how they would like
to see this view implemented.
It would appear that there is broad agreement between the two
parties on the overall aims of their health and safety policy, but
whether they will agree on the detail of how to accomplish their
objectives remains to be seen.
At a glance: key policies
Conservatives
• want individuals acting in good faith to be safe from
prosecution
• want to “alleviate some of the regulations that currently
hinder voluntary organisations””
• want to consolidate current legislation into a Civil
Liabilities Act in order to define civil liability for
negligence
• will ensure that the risk to the public is “prioritised
above” the risk to police officers in dangerous situations
• want the law to be changed to end the “culture of excessive
litigation”
• decline to comment on accreditation for the profession until
Lord Young’s review is published
• agree that health and safety is an important part of
employment training.
Liberal Democrats
• want a “commonsense approach” where responsibilities are
fairly allocated and there are penalties for those who “seek to
deny their responsibilities”
• want tougher fines for breaches in health and safety
regulation
• want to see “a renewed emphasis on risk assessment” and
“efficient targeting of resources”
• support restrictions on the “ambulance chasing compensation
culture”
• support IOSH’s proposals for an online register of health
and safety consultants
• agree that health and safety is an important aspect of
employment training.