States members consider the goldfish as health and safety licencing powers extension greenlighted

Friday 22 November 2024

States members were assured that goldfish are safe as they debated opening the door to more health and safety powers and moving costs away from the taxpayer.

Employment & Social Security brought a proposal to the States to update 1987 legislation so the committee could then propose regulations to licence any work-related activities that were hazardous, risky or of public concern.

Currently formal health and safety licensing is limited to the importation and storage of explosives, petroleum and pesticides, and the erection of scaffolding on or over a public footpath, road or verge.

Any other work by inspectors relies on discretion and the costs are covered by the taxpayer, not the business involved.

But the move to allow this to be broadened and formalised and getting business to pay, which eventually passed, was given a rough ride by States members fearful of increasing bureaucracy and cost to business.

They included Deputy John Dyke: “This is more regulation that nobody particularly has been screaming for. It'll involve more civil servants, more costs. And you can licence anything to protect the public. Should you require a licence to own a goldfish? You can go on and on and on.”

Members felt the policy letter was short on detail and did not explain what areas could be licenced in the future.

Deputy John Gollop picked up on the goldfish dilemma as he mused during his speech about how he did once own goldfish, they included Pinky and Perky died after a day or two. 

“Health and safety isn't about being a policeman or being a financial drain,” he said.

“It's actually to prevent accidents, and the point is clearly mad it would not just manage risks in accordance of relevant industry good practice, but it would impose conditions in relation to the operation of the relevant activities while enabling the recovery of regulatory costs currently borne by the taxpayer with the charging of a licence fee.”

Deputy Aidan Matthews wanted to see more detail about what exactly was envisaged would be regulated or licenced. He also returned to the goldfish bowl.

“How would it come about that something would be licenced and the decision would be made, and how would you object to it if, as Deputy Dyke says, you objected to the idea of licences for goldfish as an Assembly, how would that that decision making process happen? And unless I hear a good argument, I'm not really inclined to vote for the propositions.”

After hearing a string of objections, ESS President Peter Roffey closed the debate by saying a very big mountain was being made out of a mole hill.

He said they were trying to put in place suitable legislation that would last for many decades.

They did not know what might need to be addressed in the future, so moving to allow it to be set by regulations would mean the law would not keep having to be updated.

They were following the same principles as their forefathers who decided that for people that were engaging in hazardous activity that needed a degree of regulation on a commercial basis, that they should cover the cost of that regulation.

He said that the Health and Safety Executive were very sensible.

“All they're saying is that by bringing in a simple licence system, not only will the regulated entity know exactly what they need to do, but actually they will be paying a bit rather than the taxpayer. That seems to me to make absolute sense.”

This was a small way they could reduce a cost that currently falls on the taxpayer, he said.

He offered reassurances that the law would be drafted so that any regulations made by the committee could be approved or annulled by the States.

“I can assure members that goldfish are quite safe.”