The comments follow the launch of a New Strategy for Health and Safety Regulation in Great Britain that will include:
- A further review of regulation
- A reduction in proactive regulation
- The introduction of more fees for employers when HSE inspectors find fault.
“The key question should be what type of regulation best suits British business and its’ workforce, not a simplistic dogma that all regulation is bad.”
At present, he said, the average small or medium business is more likely to cease trading after six years than be visited by an HSE inspector, averaging once every 14 years.
“Its hardly excessive regulation and it also seems perverse to announce a review after introducing such significant change.
"It looks as if the government is determined to announce cuts before Professor Ragnar Löfstedt even starts his review. What happens if he concludes that more inspection, not less, is required?”
Prospect’s HSE members are convinced that proactive inspection is vital not least because prevention is cheaper and better for business, employees and the taxpayer than the cost of putting lives back together after an accident, said Macdonald.
“We understand that the removal of proactive inspection from lower-risk workplaces is one of the least damaging options. But the government should recognise that this still means lives are being risked to achieve 35% budget cuts, far in excess of the average cut across the public sector.
“We have to ask, is health and safety such a low priority that it deserves such a cut with the knock-on impact on taxpayers who work?”