SINCE Conservative governments broke the power of the unions, they are under a special obligation to step in with extra zeal to regulate conditions in the workplace. To move in the opposite direction would be shameful and short-sighted. Yet that is exactly what seems to be happening.

As reported yesterday in the Independent on Sunday, proposals are likely to surface in the Deregulation Bill, to be announced in the Queen's Speech this week, to sweep away large areas of safety legislation and replace these with a more general 'duty of care' that would oblige employers to provide 'suitable conditions' for workers. This would undermine the basis of the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act, which stipulates that health and safety legislation cannot be revoked unless replaced by 'some measure with a positive health and safety purpose'.

It is possible that a vaguely worded 'duty of care' could make some employers more careful than before, because grey areas tend to attract litigation. The courts might move in to occupy the area vacated by the Government. More probably, large responsible companies would continue to pursue best practice while smaller ones would be increasingly tempted to cut corners and take risks. 'Cowboys' would become even more irresponsible than they are now.

It is not even certain that there would be big returns in terms of profitability for British industry. Industrial accidents and work-related illnesses cost industry millions of working days a year. Any profits gained from more lax regulations could easily be swallowed up by a rise in these costs, which would fall on employers as well as on the National Health Service.

Perhaps the Government hopes that foreign investors, already attracted to this country by low wages and other areas of deregulation, will become excited by the prospect of exposing their workers to more risks than are permitted in other parts of Europe. If so, this would be a wretched way to attract investment. But the better foreign companies might well be put off by a regime that left their responsibilities so vague and so exposed to challenge, not to mention swift change, by some future Labour government.

According to provisional figures, there were 297 deaths in the workplace in 1992 and 17,597 major injuries. Many more minor injuries went unreported. These figures are still shockingly high, confirming that enforcement of existing legislation remains too lax. Is the Government really ready to accept responsibility for letting the figures rise even higher? Is it for this that the battle was fought against the Maastricht treaty's social chapter?

No doubt some of the laws on industrial safety that have accumulated over the past century have become anachronistic and excessively burdensome. There is a case for reform and probably some pruning. But the Government's answer looks dangerous and retrograde.