Health and Safety | UK Regulatory Outlook November 2024

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill completes Commons Committee stage

On 31 October 2024, the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill completed its committee stage in the House of Commons where minor amendments were made. The bill has been reprinted in advance of its report stage where it will be debated and further amendments proposed. The date for the bill's report stage and third reading is yet to be announced.

Key changes made at committee stage include:

• Monetary Penalties: The maximum penalty for an individual for non-compliance with a notice to attend and answer questions is set at £5,000 (clause 18).
• Disclosure of Information: Any person can disclose information to the Security Industry Authority (SIA) for regulatory purposes, and the SIA can disclose information held in connection with its functions (clause 28).
• Clarification of definition of "Visiting Members of the Public": Access limitations to premises, such as paid entry, invitations, passes, or membership, do not prevent the duties of the Bill from applying to qualifying public premises and event (Schedule 1, paragraph 20).

In addition, a number of factsheets to accompany the bill have been published. These are a helpful resource for understanding the scope of the bill as applicable to premises and events; how to calculate the number of people that may be "reasonably expected" to be present at a premises or event; obligations of the Responsible Person; duties for standard dutyholders and enhanced dutyholders; and detail about the SIA's powers as regulator.

Higher Risk Buildings: confusion over whether a roof garden counts as a storey 

A First-tier Tribunal (FTT) judge has recently rejected government guidance on the Building Safety Act, ruling that under the actual legislation and contrary to what the guidance said, a building's roof-top garden was a storey and consequently that the building concerned was a higher-risk building (HRB). While government guidance can provide a useful steer on how legislation will be interpreted, the courts will not always follow it. The government has since amended its guidance to say that it is considering the views expressed by the FTT but is also urging sector and regulatory bodies to continue to refer to existing government guidance.

In general terms, an HRB is a building of at least 18 metres in height or which has at least seven storeys. The definition of a "storey" is therefore of critical importance in determining the legal obligations in relation to some buildings.

This ruling brings greater uncertainty to the process of working out whether a building comes under the definition of a "higher-risk building" for the purposes of the Act. As there is now a question mark over whether the government guidance is valid, organisations that own or manage multi-storey residential buildings should review whether they may fall within the definition of a "higher-risk building", if the review of the government guidance results in the roof gardens exclusion being removed.

Businesses should also be aware of the need to refer back to the primary legislation rather than relying solely on the guidance, and err on the side of caution if their building has a roof garden which takes the height of the building over seven storeys.

HSE publish annual statistics on work-related injury

On 20 November, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) published its 2023/24 statistics on work-related injury. The latest statistics show that work-related stress, depression or anxiety remain broadly similar to the previous year, but the rate in 2023/24 is still higher than the 2018/19 pre-coronavirus level, which the HSE says has been driven by a higher rate of self-reporting. Other trends include a similar rate to fatal injuries to pre-coronavirus levels and a downward trend in Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) reported injuries.

These figures serve as a timely reminder for businesses of their duty to ensure that employees are not exposed to risks that could affect their mental health and wellbeing. Companies should carefully review these latest statistics to assess how they align and to identify any areas that may require action.

Changes to the wording relating to sentencing very large organisations

Amendments are being proposed to the criminal sentencing guidelines including a change to sentencing very large organisations (VLOs). The Environment Agency (EA) raised concerns about fines for VLOs during a consultation on environmental guidelines and argued that current guidelines for sentencing VLOs are too limited and courts need clearer guidance.

The Council's guidelines aim to support courts in sentencing parameters, in this case in relation to VLOs. The current guidelines for organisations states that for VLOs, it may be necessary to move outside the suggested range to achieve a proportionate sentence. The proposed expanded wording clarifies that there is no precise turnover level that defines which companies will be considered to be a VLO and emphasises the need for proportionate fines that reflect the seriousness of the offence and the financial circumstances of the organisation. It therefore seems the Council's intention is for the renewed VLO guidance to enable the courts to impose financial penalties that have a punitive effect on defendants. 

These changes are being implemented in relation to environmental cases, but the paper states that, if adopted, the expanded wording would be added to guidelines for breaches of health and safety. A consultation on these amendments ran until 27^th November and once the results of the consultation have been considered, the updated guidelines will be published and used by all courts.