13.2.13

Unions berate government on 'safety costs' lie

The following has been supplied by the TUC:
Unions have reacted angrily to a 'ridiculous' government claim that safety regulation is a waste of 'time and money' for businesses that should be 'focusing on growth'. They were commenting after on the publication of two reports outlining how the Health and Safety Executive has responded to government demands to reduce official safety oversight and regulation, based on recommendations from government commissioned reviews by former Tory cabinet minister Lord Young and Professor Ragnar Lofstedt. Minister for employment Mark Hoban said: 'For too long businesses have been confused by health and safety regulations which cost them money and take up time when they should be focusing on growth.' He added: 'Health and safety is important, but its focus should be where risks are high. These reports show just how much progress we have made in restoring clarity to the system, and over the coming months I'll be making sure common sense prevails.' UNISON national safety officer Robert Baughan responded: 'The argument against these regulations is ridiculous. If health and safety is supposed to be a burden and a barrier to jobs and growth why then is the economy still in recession? The real burden is the 20,000 people a year who die through their work.' He added: 'The coalition has slashed health and safety regulations in the same reckless, irresponsible manner they have slashed public services. Health and safety legislation is not there to cause a headache to employers - it is there to keep people safe at work. This government has seen yet another opportunity to chip away at the hard-won rights of workers, and is putting the safety - and lives - of workers at risk as a result.' A TUC spokesperson said: 'If the government spent half the time and effort that they have wasted over the past two and a half years trying to reduce non-existent burdens and sort imagined problems with health and safety into trying to improve the system, then they would have helped reduce the real burden felt by the 1.8 million workers and former workers currently suffering from an injury or illness caused by their work.'