Will Brexit Mean Changes to Health and Safety Law?

In recent months, there have been voices calling for a major review of EU legislation in the arena of health and safety and workers' rights. Should we be worried about an overhaul of safety in post-Brexit Britain?

The core framework for our health and safety law comes from the UK's own Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. The main body of EU health and safety legislation was instigated in the 1990s and overlaps with much of the pre-existing UK legislation. Theoretically, the UK government would be under no obligation to keep EU directives after leaving the union and will be able to review and amend if they wish.

In a letter to all MPs, Simon Boyd, managing director of REIDSteel and Vote Leave campaigner, called for the government to review a list of legislation he sees as damaging to UK business. His list includes: The Working Time Directive (WTD), employment law and health and safety. 

Another call for change came from former British Chamber of Commerce Director, John Longworth. Speaking to MPs at the cross-party Exiting the EU Select Committee, he claimed 'opportunities for deregulation are legion' and argued a move away from EU directives would reduce business costs.

The Trade Union Council (TUC) was quick to respond to calls for deregulation. TUC General Secretary Frances O'Grady said: 'Bad bosses are trying to hijack Brexit to let them walk all over working people. No-one voted to leave to lose vital protections like safe working hours and fair holiday pay.' The TUC has since created a petition to keep workers' rights protected when making new UK laws.

What does the government have to say? At the Conservative party conference, Theresa May pledged that Brexit would not mean an end to workers' rights. In fact, she wants to see more protection for workers in post-Brexit Britain. The Secretary of State for Leaving the EU, David Davis, also explicitly stated:

'To those who are trying to frighten British workers, saying "When we leave, 
employment rights will be eroded", I say firmly and unequivocally "no they won't.
Britain already goes beyond EU law in many areas - and we give this guarantee:
this Conservative government will not roll back those rights in the workplace.'

In the health and safety arena, the UK has seen a strong improvement in key stats over recent years and is widely regarded as a global leader in health and safety. It seems unlikely that the government will want to reverse this trend and good reputation by undoing legislation.

The WTD, which Simon Boyd sees as a hindrance to business, offers workers protection from hazardously long working hours (although the UK retains opt-out provisions for individuals). Removing such legislation would go against the stance currently taken by the government to tackle mental health issues and stress in the workplace. Again, deregulation here seems unlikely.

Those who argue for deregulation also oversimplify the process by which EU directives were implemented. Simon Boyd suggests the unnecessary legislation has been 'forced upon us through damaging directives and regulations' and forgets the involvement of the UK government in negotiating these agreements. This can be seen in the 2014 Appraisal of HSE's approach to negotiating and implementing European legislation. While the report highlights several areas in need of 'streamlining' there is no major discrepancy on key legislation which deregulation campaigners suggest have been unfairly enforced on us.

While our departure from the EU gives the government an opportunity to review the laws surrounding workers' rights and safety, an overhaul of legislation seems unlikely and unwise. As ever, health and safety law needs to balance the burden to business with health and safety best practise and ensure the law promotes the well-being of workers, businesses and the general public.