Call for evidence on health and safety legislation for the Löfstedt Review

Published on Friday, 20 May 2011 15:58
Posted by Scott Buckler

The Löfstedt Review into health and safety legislation, announced by the Minister for Employment in March, today issued a call for evidence, inviting views from all interested parties on the scope for reducing the burden of health and safety regulation on UK businesses whilst maintaining health and safety outcomes (May 20th)

As set out in the finalised Terms of Reference, also published today, the review will consider the opportunity for combining, simplifying or reducing the approximately 200 statutory instruments that are owned by the Health and Safety Executive, by learning lessons from health and safety regimes in other countries, and considering the extent to which regulations:

  • have impacted on positive health and safety outcomes and businesses;
  • have led to unreasonable outcomes, or inappropriate litigation and compensation; and
  • have unnecessarily enhanced the requirements of an EU directive.

Chris Grayling said:

"Getting the regulation of health and safety right is important to everyone. The Health and Safety at Work etc Act remains an effective framework. However we need to put common sense back into health and safety and ease the burdens on business, and I look forward to Professor Löfstedt’s findings."

Professor Ragnar Löfstedt said:

"I hope to hear from as many people with an interest in health and safety regulation as possible.  I want the review to be informed by concrete examples and evidence from a range of stakeholders including employer and employee organisations, Government and professional health and safety bodies, practitioners and academics.  Getting their expert advice will ensure the findings of the review are robust and I hope they will take the opportunity to feed in their views."

The review is part of a package of changes to Britain’s health and safety system to support the Government’s growth agenda and cut red tape.


Source: DWP

The views expressed in the contents below are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of GovToday.

Add comment