Yossarian - I don't think you're a one trick pony!

#40

As I've been asked to do an internal paper on the implications of this CD, checked some definitions.

Farm visitor attraction - not a zoo within the meaning of Zoo Licensing Act 1981. Whether it's an agricultural activity within the meaning of Enforcing Authority Regs - not sure!

Paragraph 9 of the draft Schedule of Activities SHOULD pull back into scope many of the supposed 2 million self-employed that Table 3 of Impact Assessment on pp 49-50 of CD says expected to be exempt e.g. motor mechanics, auto engineers who handle, store or "use" a carcinogen (including petrol) and a substance hazardous to health (including within mixtures) which has been assigned a workplace exposure limit or which is listed in Table 3.2 of part 3 of Annex VI of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 or which is subject to DSEAR or acetylene.

But since HSE "expect" that a self-employed motor mechanic would be exempt is it realistic for that person to read through the detail of paragraph 9 of the draft Schedule? What's going to happen when the next fatality arises from uncontrolled draining of a petrol tank?

As I ponder this further, it occurred to me to look at what debate there's been in the Public Bill Committee for the Deregulation Bill.

http://www.publications..../140227/am/140227s01.htm

So interesting discussion on hairdressers.

http://www.publications..../140227/am/140227s01.htm

Solicitor General pushing Clause 1 as currently drafted.....

"Of course, the handling of a sensitising substance of the sort used for colouring hair and in other hairdressing activities is on the prescribed list already. It is the second item down, under handling, storage, transport and use. It lists various items, including sensitising substances, so anything of that sort would be covered." (Numbering of draft Scheduling appears to have been amended since)

...but despite Government recognition that e.g. COSHH type risks to third parties mean that hairdressers would not be exempt, CD273 "Table 3 - Occupations where we would expect most self-employed would be exempted under our current Option 1, but not under previous proposals" include....

Hairdressers
Motor mechanics
Heavy goods vehicle drivers

So, now whether we tell these groups that they'll be exempt from s3(2) or not, how do we then explain to them that they've still got duties under various codes of regulations, such as COSHH, but not all regulations that implement EC H&S directives.

So the lorry loader driver who overturned his vehicle at Ipswich Dock killing one and injuring another, leading to 6 month sentence for manslaughter + £50k fine for s3(2) could still be prosecuted under LOLER.

Conversely, the motor mechanic who reversed his van, killing 79 year old customer, has no duty under the Workplace Regs and might not face a £7500 fine + £75k+ costs.

....and here's what Lofstedt has sent to the House

http://www.publications....regulation/memo/db06.htm

including the comment

"While I recognised in my Report that, in practice, there was little prospect of those self-employed persons in low risk activities facing inspection, but there was a perception that health and safety law was inappropriately and disproportionately applied to these individuals. This was the basis of my recommendation that those self-employed whose work activities pose no potential risk of harm to others.

Although I did not give examples in my Report of what, in this context, might be considered as low or high risk activities, at subsequent speaking events I have given suggested that clerical type work e.g. a software developer or writer, would be considered as posing low risk to others, while construction work would be considered as high risk."

Political gain, my friend.

I though they were supposed to be 'simplifying' things... or is that just another statement on a par with 'the NHS is safe in our hands'?

Maybe politicians use a different dictionary,

John

Thanks for the update Peter. It does make you wonder what the heck those who drafted the legislation were thinking.

How can it be morally acceptable to exempt people from their responsibilities to wider society in order to 'cut red tape'? Then to do it by replacing three lines of law with six pages of clauses? And not properly cost the impact?

I regularly train staff telling them about the moral, financial and legal reasons behind health and safety compliance. This bill failed on all three counts.