This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Those in the UK can hardly have failed to notice that we are well into the campaigning for the next general election for a new national government. Unlike some other countries which have a fixed term for the government the incumbent government in the UK can call an election at any time so often campaigns are blissfully short. This time it looks like the public is in for a long haul. At present the Conservative party is ahead in the polls, although their lead is narrowing. With this in mind it was interesting to read about their ideas for the future of regulatory bodies and how they act.
Having been an HSE inspector in a past life, I was encouraged to be a member of a trade union to represent my interests with my employer. The most widely representative trade union within HSE was/is Prospect. As is common, Prospect had a presence at the various political party conferences earlier in the year. The Prospect journal coverage of the Conservative party conference quoted Ken Clarke as follows:-
"Ken Clarke, shadow business secretary, says his party’s proposals would get rid of a “millstone around Britain’s neck” that is stifling economic recovery and playing havoc with public services.
At the Conservative party conference in Manchester, he pledged to introduce a powerful new ‘star chamber,’ to be chaired by the business secretary. This will enforce a stringent ‘one in – one out’ requirement whereby any new law must include cuts in old laws which, together, produce a net 5 per cent reduction in the regulatory burden.
Clarke said he would also:
This made interesting reading for me and I want to share my thoughts with you.
In general the deregulatory approach is a theme which has survived from the last conservative administration and is no surprise. During their tenure of office HSE was required to review, and where possible repeal, old legislation much of which was prescriptive in nature. Going forward HSE would rely on the more goal setting generality of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. This approach found favour with the policy makers responsible for legislation as the legislation no longer needed frequent updating to avoid prejudicing advances in technology. However the lack of prescription did not always find favour with duty holders who felt that there was a lack of clarity which inhibited them from being able to convince the regulator that they had 'done enough'.
So what of the future if the conservative party is successful at the ballot box? Let's take these ideas in the order presented.
A ‘sunset clause’ to all regulators and quangos: This seems unlikely to be applied to regulators such as HSE or the Environment Agencies. It has previously been applied to 'task and finish' bodies such as development agencies.
Curb the powers of ‘intrusive inspectors’ by allowing firms to arrange their own, externally audited inspections and, providing they pass, to refuse entry to official inspectors thereafter: This seems the most radical suggestion of the four if it is to be applied to health and safety regulation across the board. It is already practised to some degree in the UK in respect of 'thorough examination by competent persons' for steam boilers, lifting equipment and similar. Satisfactory reports can be viewed by HSE inspectors during site visits and unsatisfactory reports are sent direct to HSE by the 'competent persons' for the necessary regulatory action.
Previous bouts of deregulatory thinking have considered widening the scope of this approach in the past. Perhaps an incoming Conservative administration will put it into action.
Strengthen the accountability of regulators and inspectorates to parliament: This is unsurprising and could have been proposed by the current administration. However it does raise the general issue of the remit of 'arms length' regulatory bodies such as HSE, and, in particular who they have been set up to serve. In the early years of HSE the concept of 'arms length' regulatory bodies seemed to cause no particular problems for Government.
In periods of economic upheaval Government looked for every 'lever' it could pull to make its case, and HSE was often viewed as one such 'lever'. Recently HSE has been given a remit for rehabilitation of the workplace injured, whether safety or health issue, to get workers back to work and contributing to the economy and their own well-being. I would not quibble with the concept but HSE seemed to me to be badly placed to make an impact. Recent HSE pronouncements seem to me to indicate a drawing back from this position.
On accountability itself, I have always considered that HSE was set up to be accountable to the public directly rather than their elected representatives. During my time as an HSE inspector, when asked about my role, I would say that my job was firstly, to check that the occupational safety risks from major hazard plants were being properly managed by the 'duty holder' and secondly, to provide assurance to those working at those plants and those living or otherwise present nearby, that this was the case. Assuring off-site populations was seldom carried out and hard work, but very satisfying when properly done.
Allow the public to nominate unpopular regulations to be reviewed by parliament: It may be a vote winner, but the 'vox populi' does not have a great track record on regulation inspired by the public leading to 'knee jerk reaction' by politicians. People generally do not like any regulation until the lack of it adversely affects them or their family directly. The opinion then changes. However, I see no reason not to give it a try. It will be interesting to see how many times HMG says 'nothing we can do about it, the regulation comes from Brussels'!
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.