paddy carr
Moderator
Changes to the RIDDOR procedure.
Employers will no longer have to report over-three day injuries to the authorities from next year, following the HSE’s decision to recommend an extension to the reporting threshold to ministers.
The absence period that triggers an accident report to the HSE or local authority under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) will rise from three to seven days.
The HSE board agreed to recommend the change at its 17 August meeting, accepting the results of a public consultation which found a two-thirds majority in favour of putting back the absence threshold.
The extension was first recommended by Lord Young is his report Common Sense, Common Safety, published last October, and the HSE board agreed to the public consultation in December.
The exercise, which ran from January to April, prompted 776 responses, 67% of them in favour of the proposed change according to the HSE
A paper prepared by HSE officials recommending the change to the board noted that respondents in favour of the extension believed it would be beneficial to align the time before an accident needed reporting with the time off before an employee must go to their GP for a MED3 fitnote.
Two in five of the consultation responses expressed worries about the extension’s impact on national injury statistics, particularly the HSE’s ability to see emerging patterns in accident rates.
The executive’s paper said analysis of injury figures between 2003 and 2010 showed the over-seven-day and over-three-day rates were broadly similar, so the HSE’s chief statistician believes the change will still allow the regulator to spot trends.
Some HSE board members expressed their concern that extending the threshold would encourage organisations to treat over-three-day injuries less seriously.
Echoing a small proportion of the consultation respondents, board member and TUC health and safety officer Hugh Robertson said the change risked having no positive effect on injury and ill health rates, while bringing little, if any, efficiency gain for dutyholders, who will still be legally obliged to record over-three-day injuries even if they do not have to report them.
Noting the majority of consultees in favour of the change, Robertson said “The purpose of regulation is not to please employers”.
The board accepted a proposal from HSE chair Judith Hackitt to agree to recommend the extension but proposed a review in three years to check for any negative impact on injury rates or RIDDOR reporting.
The recommendation also includes extending the period in which dutyholders must notify the authorities of a RIDDOR-reportable accident from 10 to 15 days after the accident.
HSE officials suggested the change after come consultees noted that the new seven-day threshold would only leave an employer a two-day reporting window under the current regulations.
The HSE will now recommend the change to ministers and amendments to RIDDOR will be laid before parliament next February, so the new arrangements can come into force from April.
Employers will no longer have to report over-three day injuries to the authorities from next year, following the HSE’s decision to recommend an extension to the reporting threshold to ministers.
The absence period that triggers an accident report to the HSE or local authority under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) will rise from three to seven days.
The HSE board agreed to recommend the change at its 17 August meeting, accepting the results of a public consultation which found a two-thirds majority in favour of putting back the absence threshold.
The extension was first recommended by Lord Young is his report Common Sense, Common Safety, published last October, and the HSE board agreed to the public consultation in December.
The exercise, which ran from January to April, prompted 776 responses, 67% of them in favour of the proposed change according to the HSE
A paper prepared by HSE officials recommending the change to the board noted that respondents in favour of the extension believed it would be beneficial to align the time before an accident needed reporting with the time off before an employee must go to their GP for a MED3 fitnote.
Two in five of the consultation responses expressed worries about the extension’s impact on national injury statistics, particularly the HSE’s ability to see emerging patterns in accident rates.
The executive’s paper said analysis of injury figures between 2003 and 2010 showed the over-seven-day and over-three-day rates were broadly similar, so the HSE’s chief statistician believes the change will still allow the regulator to spot trends.
Some HSE board members expressed their concern that extending the threshold would encourage organisations to treat over-three-day injuries less seriously.
Echoing a small proportion of the consultation respondents, board member and TUC health and safety officer Hugh Robertson said the change risked having no positive effect on injury and ill health rates, while bringing little, if any, efficiency gain for dutyholders, who will still be legally obliged to record over-three-day injuries even if they do not have to report them.
Noting the majority of consultees in favour of the change, Robertson said “The purpose of regulation is not to please employers”.
The board accepted a proposal from HSE chair Judith Hackitt to agree to recommend the extension but proposed a review in three years to check for any negative impact on injury rates or RIDDOR reporting.
The recommendation also includes extending the period in which dutyholders must notify the authorities of a RIDDOR-reportable accident from 10 to 15 days after the accident.
HSE officials suggested the change after come consultees noted that the new seven-day threshold would only leave an employer a two-day reporting window under the current regulations.
The HSE will now recommend the change to ministers and amendments to RIDDOR will be laid before parliament next February, so the new arrangements can come into force from April.
