The European trade union movement is expressing concern over
what it sees as an attack on the principle of risk assessment, under
the guise of better regulation.
Commenting on proposals by the Stoiber Group, which if adopted would
do away with the requirement for small and micro businesses to prepare
written health and safety risk assessments as required by the Framework
Directive, Laurent Vogel of the European Trade Union Institute said the
“proposal would seriously undermine the systematic management of health
and safety in small firms”.
The Stoiber Group was set up, as a High Level Group, by the European
Commission in late 2007, to examine ways of reducing the administrative
burden on business. The Group was charged with the task of coming up
with proposals in thirteen policy areas, including the working
environment and employee relations.
The 15-member group is headed by Edmund Stoiber, a former Christian
Social Union (allied with the Christian Democrats) premier of the
German state of Bavaria. The group includes one Irish member, Jim
Murray, who was formerly director of the Office of Consumer Affairs in
Ireland.
At the end of May, the Group published a report setting out its
recommendations on the working environment and employee relations. The
recommendations would:
- allow EU member states to exempt very small firms
undertaking low risk activity from having to produce a written health
and safety risk assessment
- allow EU member states, after
consulting with the social partners, to derogate from the requirement
to prepare a construction health and safety file, as required by the
Construction Sites Directive
- require the EU Commission to
act on proposals for the publication of better guidance and eGov
solutions and better co-ordination.
To enable member states to exempt small enterprises from the obligation
to draw up risk assessments, the Stoiber Group recommends that article
9 of the Framework Directive (the article setting out employers’
obligations) be redrafted or clarified.
The Stoiber Group’s recommendations are based on a report presented by
a consortium, selected by the Commission, to carry out what the
Commission describes as a “measurement exercise” (an assessment of the
impact of regulation on business, in terms of time and cost).
This consortium concluded that the bulk of the administrative burden on
business could be attributed to the Framework Directive. The consortium
estimated that the Directive costs the European economy €3.1bn a year.
The Construction Sites Directive is estimated to cost about €600m a
year in administrative cost burdens. It is noted in the Stoiber Group
report that in the years from 1995 to 2005, following the enactment of
the Framework Directive, reportable accidents in the EU fell from
almost five million to under four million and fatalities fell from over
6,200 to just over 4,000.
The Stoiber Group’s report identifies the consultancy sector as “a cost
driver”. The Stoiber Group expresses the opinion that “there is an over
emphasis on process rather than outcomes”. The need for “unnecessary
external advice” should be reduced.
TRADE UNION CONCERNS
Commenting further on the work of the consortium, Vogel said most of
the Stoiber Group’s members seem to see the obligation to manage as an
administrative burden.
While the Stoiber Group had published its opinion based on the
consortium’s report, Vogel said that no details on the methodology
employed by the consortium had been published. The few documents
published “betray a superficial analysis”.
In remarks which reflect wider trade union concern with the policy
direction of the European Commission, which may foreshadow serious
clashes, Vogel questioned the make up of the Stoiber Group, which he
said ensured “the most hard line deregulationist views from an
automatic majority”.
Writing in the ETUI magazine, HESA Newsletter, Vogel
voiced the trade union movement’s concerns about ‘Better Regulation’,
which many trade unions see as a guise to reducing worker protection,
under an attractive banner.
|
