I feel compelled to say a few words about the article “Workin' USA” from Mr Pomeroy in March's Safety and Health Practitioner. What an excellent piece of work. He appears to be well informed and has produced a lucid commentary comparing the UK health and safety system with that in the USA. It makes one realise how Lord Robens really did hit the nail on the head with his work which led up to HASWA. We might feel that there are areas of the UK health and safety system which could do with a tweak but it is still, overall, very much fit for purpose. Across the other side of the water it appears to be a different matter. I see that Mr Pomeroy’s company operates in 11 countries. Perhaps Tina at SHP could commission him to write another 9 similar articles

Yes, an interesting article which highlights the difference between jurisdictions. Interestingly the HSWA was loosely based on the OSH Act and it appears the OSH Act may have been loosely based on UK legislation pre HSWA. I think there is a good argument for a h&s system and legislation based on the best parts of the American and UK systems. However, much of UK legislation is now dictated through EU law and I am not aware of any meaningful research identifying the strengths and weaknesses of UK h&s legislation - more the pity.

Hi all, I'm delighted you enjoyed James' article - I, too, thought it was fascinating. I never knew, for example, that public-sector workers in the US are not covered by OSH law! Al - you'll be pleased to know that there are plans in the pipeline to commission James to write more for us. Ray - we tend to "stagger" the uploading of features from the magazine on to the website to ensure that IOSH members/magazine subscribers get to read them first - in the magazine - before they are made available to all on the website. This article and some of the others from the March issue will be uploaded today - complete with the full list of references - so do check it out again later today. Tina

Claire, I don't think we can ignore the Conservatives. They may form part of the next Government and what they believe or think (right or wrong) will no doubt influence or feed in to their policy. We are involved in a battle for the soul of H&S legislation and the fundamental right for people not to be harmed by the actions or omissions of others. It distresses me that this right is considered negotiable and the topic is even considered a party political issue.

Hi Claire, I actually think there is scope for a substantial reduction in H&S legislation, though perhaps not for the same reason as David Cameron. The Robens report concluded that there was much too much legislation, that this was excessively prescriptive and proscriptive, and that it could anticipate the risks associated with technological developments e.g. plants such as Flixborough. My 1976 “Redgrave” is 175mm x 115mm x 1949 pages. HSWA then drafted by a Conservative Government and enacted by its Labour successor with goal setting requirements, which would be backed up by goal setting regulations, Approved Codes of Practice (with the intent that these would be largely drafted by those creating the risks – that didn’t often happen!) and guidance. However, when the EC started producing H&S directives, the Conservative Government routinely translated these into new regulations, rather than e.g. saying that the subject matter was in the scope of HSWA, hence no new regulations required, though possibly supported by ACOP or guidance. As an HSE inspector I drafted the prosecution of both main and sub-contractor following a head injury on a construction site, using HSWA SS 2 and 4 - well before the head protection regulations - which were heralded as "For the first time the use of safety helmets on sites will be mandatory" - Twas news to me following the trial leading to successful convictions of both defendants! Successive governments of both blue and pink hues have blindly followed this model. So my 2008 “Redgrave is 255mm x 155mm x 2349 – so much for Robens’ wish for less extent and complexity of H&S law. ….and as individual directives get amended, so we make the regulations ever more prescriptive – compare e.g. Control of Asbestos at Work Regs 1987 with the 2006 current regs, e.g. as regards the level of detail as to training requirements. Some years ago in response to a Consultation Document, I was amongst the minority of respondents who suggested that COSHH, lead and asbestos regs should be consolidated into a single code of regulations. The argument of the majority was that the risks associated with lead and asbestos are so significant that they need standalone legislation – well you could make exactly the same argument for e.g. other heavy metals, solvents and respiratory sensitisers! In my opinion, it would be possible to revoke most of our current regulations without reducing the standard of protection that is required. Regards, Peter

I am not a legal expert on the subject of what is acceptable in context of transposition of EU directives into member states national systems. That is for the legal experts. However, when we had the maximum amount of directives to be transposed in the late eighties and early nineties, due to the antagonist position taken by the govenmment in power, not much could be done to influence the outcomes. With my limited knowledge, I cannot see how the EU/EC will accept whether a particular directive has been transposed into national system unless it is done via some type of specific "legislative route" . A possibility may exist by changing the legal status of the GB ACoP to what is acceptable to the EU/EC for the purpose of transposition. I am reasonably certain that had it been legally possible, the government in the late eighties and early nineties would have done that. Although we have a large amount of environmental directives in the pipeline, the number of new health and safety ones are very few and consideration is being given to "harmonise" some e.g. DSE and Manhual handling into a single "Ergonomics" one. There was a report titled "Robens Revisited - the case for a review of occupational health and safety regulation" by David Walters and Philip James in June 1998, published by the Institute of Employment Rights. A summary of the report is at:- http://hesa.etui-rehs.or...r/files/2000-13p7-10.pdf (It is obvious that the report has a trade union bias) My recollection is that there wasnt much support for the conclusions from this report. However, Peter has made a very pertinent point that we do not take the opportunity of consolidating legislation and it would have been possible to amalamagate the Asbestos and Lead legislation into COSHH.

I note the article is now available and can be read here: http://www.shponline.co....ures&article_id=9814

More is the pity!