The government has undertaken a Post Implementation Review (PIR) of the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008 and has now published the result (HERE). This is quite separate to Brexit and the consultation was actually undertaken before the referendum, but the paper does now include a reference to leaving the EU saying: During this period [until Brexit] the Government will continue to negotiate, implement and apply EU legislation. The outcome of these negotiations will determine what arrangements apply in relation to EU legislation in future once the UK has left the EU.
These Regulations implement Directive 2006/42/EC on machinery (as amended by Directive 2009/127/EC) into UK law and are the backbone of European law on safety of machines in the workplace. Regulations like these, as you know, are widely derided by Brexiteers as being unnecessary and expensive so the review was of interest to me. And surprisingly the government has concluded:
.....that the Regulations should remain as in force, for the following reasons:
- The Regulations are meeting their stated objectives;
- There is anecdotal evidence that the Regulations have helped to improve; safety, and to help provide access to the Single Market;
- The benefits to manufacturers continue to outweigh the costs;
- The main concern raised by the PIR was a perceived lack of enforcement;
- Enforcement would not be improved by changing the Regulations which would risk gold plating the EU directive.
These Regulations implement Directive 2006/42/EC on machinery (as amended by Directive 2009/127/EC) into UK law and are the backbone of European law on safety of machines in the workplace. Regulations like these, as you know, are widely derided by Brexiteers as being unnecessary and expensive so the review was of interest to me. And surprisingly the government has concluded:
.....that the Regulations should remain as in force, for the following reasons:
- The Regulations are meeting their stated objectives;
- There is anecdotal evidence that the Regulations have helped to improve; safety, and to help provide access to the Single Market;
- The benefits to manufacturers continue to outweigh the costs;
- The main concern raised by the PIR was a perceived lack of enforcement;
- Enforcement would not be improved by changing the Regulations which would risk gold plating the EU directive.
So for people like John Longworth who have campaigned long and hard to get rid of "burdensome" regulations they claim cost the country £600 million a week this will come as a disappointment. It will not however be the only one. I suspect when they come to look at cutting red tape it will be hard to find any that are not useful and well worth keeping.
