RIDDOR revolutionised?

Andrew McDonald and Natalie Puce

A change to health and safety regulations means employers only need report absences of seven days or more following a work injury

There has been public pressure for simplifying health and safety law for employers for some time. Last year the government finally took note and Lord Young produced his report, 'Common sense, common safety', which has now lead to a change in the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (Riddor).

Absence
The regulations require employers to report fatalities, major injuries and some categories of 'near misses', and any employee absence from work for more than three consecutive days following a work-related injury. This period is to be extended to seven consecutive days when the amendment to the regulations takes effect on 6 April 2012.

The proposed change received mixed reviews at the consultation stage but was ultimately supported by a majority of respondents who felt it would reduce the administrative burden. It also aligns the Riddor reporting period with the new fit-note system, which came in on 6 April 2010, thereby making employee absence easier to manage.

Unreported
It is estimated that under half of all non-fatal accidents go unreported, so there is concern that the extension may have a negative impact on the prioritisation of health and safety in organisations, lead to even lower compliance with reporting requirements, and make it difficult for regulators to spot trends. So it is perhaps no surprise that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is going to review the change in three years' time.

There are other less controversial changes to the regulations happening at the moment. Since 12 September, reportable incidents have had to be notified to the HSE using one of seven online forms on the HSE's website, although major incidents, serious injuries and fatalities can still be reported by telephone. The HSE will also cease to provide its 'info line' telephone service from the end of September - anyone seeking information or assistance will be directed to the HSE website.

Problems
At the moment, the fit notes system seems to be creating as many problems as it solves, both in terms of employment disputes and in ensuring employees' health safety. So, despite the good intentions behind the new system - to reduce the number of people claiming incapacity benefit by easing them back into the workforce - the prognosis does not look good for fit notes. The majority of respondents (66 per cent) to a survey conducted by the Confederation of British Industry and pharmaceutical company Pfizer did not think that fit notes contributed to their rehabilitation policy. Seventy-one per cent thought doctors were using fit notes much the same as they once used sick notes.

Risk assessment
Whatever happens to the fit note system, the duty to make a risk assessment, which stems from the Management of Health and Safety Regulations 1999, remains paramount. Although guidance from the Department for Work and Pensions that risk assessments only need to be a "careful consideration" of the risks and not technical or expert, there are legitimate concerns about confusion and misunderstandings arising after reading a doctor's fit note statement. Those conducting risk assessments will need to be careful they understand a fit note properly when considering accident prevention, and this may mean sending the worker back to the GP for a fuller explanation. Similar difficulties of interpretation arise when an employer is considering dismissing an employee on grounds of ill health or incapacity.

Time will tell what impact the Riddor changes will have. Lord Young's report recommended that the HSE conduct a wide-ranging review of all aspects of the regulations so more fundamental changes could soon be on the horizon for employers.

Andrew McDonald is an employment partner and Natalie Puce is a health and safety lawyer at national law firm Berrymans Lace Mawer LLP

Further info guidance from the Department for Work & Pensions

This article is not a substitute for specific legal advice and should not be relied upon as such.