Posted By Terry Reading Totally agree. I have just come back from doing some work in Brussels, which I guess you could call the 'home' of the EU, and I was surprised to find that Belgium does not even hava an agency that inspects work premises. Hows that for setting the right example (not!). Whilst technically the fire brigade there could check for fire standards, I am told they don't. The only proactive checks are made by the insurance companies and even then compliance with their recommendations is not mandatory - though I guess in extreme cases they can refuse cover and increase premiums. Risk assessments also seem to be a rarity, so it would seem the so called common market is not the level playing field it is supposed to be. This is not an anti-europe rant, but I do think that other countries need to raise their game to a higher standard. I know safety inspections too are not the be all and end all of health and safety, but it seems like a license for the unscrupulous to get away with an awful lot. They also do not have to report accidents in Belgium either - unless, you guessed it - there is going to be an insurance claim, so it gets reported then to the insurance company. So how can they possibly know how good (or bad) their safety standards really are? T.

Posted By J Knight A friend of mine was, until three years ago, a lawyer and worked as a corporate lobbyist in Brussels for a big UK telecoms provider. What she told me casts an interesting light on the common idea that Europe sets the agenda. It seems that what the UK government does is pass legislation which will be contentious or media unfriendly onto Europe to implement, that way they escape the blame. She says that German and French friends of hers in Brussels were constantly shocked at the draconian measures being lobbied for by the British (on telecoms at least) while at the same time in the UK the government and the tame media were bleating about upcoming designs on our freedoms by the EU. So maybe we implement eg MHSW regs while Germany doesn't because we wanted it and they didn't? It may not be as simple as the red-tops would like us to believe, John

Posted By Ian Bennett In relation to standards, have IOSH members being monitoring the HSE's sensible Safety site: http://www.hse.gov.uk/riskdebate/index.htm It throws up some interesting ideas for the future.

Posted By Terry Reading Jacinto I think you missed the point. The EU can't even get consistancy across member states, let alone organise things in countries where these laws do not apply! African countries need to set their own standards. EU legislation is not relevant here, though good companies will try to have consistant safety standards in the countries they work in. T

Posted By Merv Newman Nikki, read my lips, please. No, we should not drop our standards ; we should not set them so high in the first place, nor in such a draconian manner. For example, the equivalent of PUWRE came into use in France in 1993, well before the UK. But, depending on different industry capabilities and resources, up to 5 years were given to comply. 12 years later, industry as a whole DOES comply. Actually some older companies that could not afford to comply went out of business. No regrets when you look at pre-PUWRE wood-working equipment, for example. As I suggested, a cost/benefit analysis would be useful, not necessarily in setting or lowering standards, but in setting a reasonable timetable for compliance. Every company I have visited, including some with only 20 to 50 employees complies, or tries/wants to comply, with all current EU H&S legislation. The willingness and acknowledgement of the value of H&S is there. Resources are not always. One significant difference, I think, between UK jurisprudence and French : it's the results that count. An employer may have the best safety management system, training, policy, communications, equipment ... in the world and comply to the letter with every bit of national and european legislation. But if someone dies, the employer is responsible. Merv