We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has launched a twelve week
consultation on proposals to simplify and clarify the Reporting of
Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations
(RIDDOR).
RIDDOR places duties on employers, the self-employed and people
in control of work premises to report serious accidents in the
workplace, occupational diseases and specific dangerous
occurrences. Reporting assists regulatory bodies in establishing
when further investigation is required. It also provides regulators
with statistics which assist in identifying trends and subsequently
providing the most appropriate forms of guidance on prevention.
HSE consultation manager David Charnock has provided that
"we are proposing to simplify the requirements by removing the
duty to report in those areas where the information can be better
obtained from other sources or where the data isn't
particularly useful to the regulators." Proposals include the
removal of the duty on the self-employed to report injuries and
illnesses to themselves. Proposals are also made to remove the
requirement for employers to report dangerous occurrences outside
of high-risk sectors and the removal of the requirement to report
most occupational diseases. The need to report all fatal injuries
as a result of a work activity remains, as does the duty to report
major injuries to workers.
These proposals follow from the Common Sense, Common Safety
Government report published in October 2010 which recommended a
re-examination of RIDDOR to determine whether it was the best
approach for obtaining accurate information on a national basis.
The proposals also flow from Professor Löfstedt's
recommendation that ambiguity over reporting requirements should be
removed.
To view the consultation document in full, and for information
on how to respond,
click here. Consultation closes on 28 October 2012.
This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron
McKenna's free online information service. To register for
Law-Now, please go to www.law-now.com/law-now/mondaq
Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance
only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now
articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to
give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates
to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication
and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent
developments.
The original publication date for this article was
13/08/2012.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The High Court and, most recently, Court of Appeal decisions in the "banker bonus" litigation stemming out of the Commerzbank/Dresdner merger in 2008 have received extensive media coverage.
In October 2012, the Court of Appeal confirmed that a Service Provision Change ("SPC") TUPE transfer can only occur where the client who receives the service, before and after the change, remains the same (Hunter v McCarrick [2012] EWCA Civ 1399).
Following much debate, on 24 April 2013 the House of Lords finally gave its approval to employee shareholder status which will now take effect from Autumn 2013.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
