I have just received an email to say that the latest Policy Exchange report – Reducing the Burden published today (Tuesday) is irrelevant to the modern workplace, says TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber who said: “This report is as close to being relevant to the needs of the modern workplace as Alice in Wonderland.

The report can be found at the following link. I'd be interested to hear your views, especially the part where it is recommended a minimum standard of qualification for health and safety consultants should be introduced. I wonder if being a member of IOSH will be cited ?

www.policyexchange.org.uk/news/news.cgi?id=1146

Regards

Paul

I agree with this last point;

The last, and biggest, question is whether we should really try to eliminate all risk, or whether we should try to manage risk effectively. At some point, the marginal cost of risk-mitigation will exceed the marginal benefit of fewer injuries. Much as it will take a brave politician to advocate a reduction in regulation following an accident, it may be important to make explicit where health and safety lies in the order of priorities.

I also agree that from experience some consultant will sell their clients snake oil. I by no means mean all consultants,but some I have experienced are useless. A fact of the matter is that anyone can set themselves up in business and a fact of life is that there are good and bad businesses and the phrase "would you buy a second hand car from this person" doesnt apply to the H/S consultant as you dont get the result of his/her observations till you`ve entered a contract. The difficulty is then deciding if what you have been given by the "expert" is of any use and you take a gamble, which is what you probably could have done, and got away with it in the first place.

It does make some valid points which I think can all agree with, but I am not sure about the statement: "It is questionable whether the self-employed need any health and safety requirements at all, except for ensuring that their work does not harm others." has been thought through...

I presume that the "10 day qualification" refers to the Nebosh Certificate? Nothing wrong with that as a qualification in the right circumstances and environment.

I think it was commissioned by the Conservative Party for the review being headed up by Lord Young (who has signed the forward).

Some of the report is seriously misinformed. Assumes that we still have a fire certificate regime + some of the alleged 201 legislative burdens on business include regulations revoking legal requirements!

If these 201 are all still extant, administrative failure to revoke some regulations that most of us have never heard of e.g. an order for the format of the General Register that is no longer legally required is hardly a burden on businesses which have also never heard of these "requirements"! So, there may be scope for a election manifesto pledge for a bonfire of such legislation, but hardly going to have any impact whatsoever on H&S standards.

.....and of course, of these 201 quite a lot only apply in specific sectors. The number would come down dramatically if we were to count those only applicable to another sector, e.g. manufacturing or construction.

P

While Policy Exchange may be an 'independent, non-partisan educational charity' it is wedded to free market solutions:

'We are particularly interested in free market and localist solutions to public policy questions'

While being 'non-partisan' they state their research includes:

'Using centre-right means to progressive ends'. So no Conservative politics there then!!

They then produce a report which David Young states is 'to establish some basic facts about health and safety and to pose some questions'. Perhaps the thoroughness of their research can be gleamed from the following:

'It is now 'conventional wisdom' that health and safety emasculates public services. Banned science experiments and cancelled school trips are featured daily in the media .....'

Even the Daily Mail is hard pressed to find 'elf and safety' stories more than once or twice a month. And by definition, what the Daily Mail is reporting on are highly unusual situations.

The one I like the most is on page 35. The author appears to be upset when he reports:

'The high level of compliance [with health and safety laws] within public authorities is likely to be connected to the fact that, unlike in much of the private and third sectors, unions continue to wield considerable power.'

If only public services were not pressurised by workers to obey the law!!

Strangely enough, the success of trade union co-operation with employers was reflected in Revitalising Health and Safety in June 2000:

'Workplaces with trades union safety representatives and joint health and safety committees
have significantly better accident records – over 50% fewer injuries – than those with no
consultation mechanism.'

Since then the increasing evidence of this success led the HSE to adopt worker involvement as a key part of its new strategy. The HSE's 'Safe and Sound at Work - do your bit' initiative is providing funds to help SME's improve worker involvement.

This report is similar to those used to 'support' the deregulation exercise in 1993/94. I presume it will be consigned to a similar bin.

Cheers.

Nigel