Only had a very quick scan as off out for a hospital appointment but the last paragraph resonates with me! Any review needs to look at the 'problem' (if indeed there is one) in 'the round' and examine WHY we end up with some of the 'strange' decsions that we see and hear about (although I fear that some are more down tot he imagination or selective interpretation of some reporters/newspapers). In the main I don't tgink that there are any major faults with most of the legislation itself. I fear the answer is something a little more complex than that!

Heather, It is my perception that the application of risk assessment ,brought in by EU legilsation, by HSE and many H&S practioners has eroded the doctrine of reasonably practicable. Ken

A conversion on the road to Damscus? One can but hope. Perhaps along the road somewhere he paused to read IOSH responses to earlier reports. That said, it isn't that long ago that he caused widespread dismay & consternation at the IOSH Annual Conference, and his endorsement of the much criticised Policy Exchange document "Health and Safety - reducing the burden" (Corin Taylor) is still a matter of public record. See: http://www.policyexchang...e_burden_-_March__10.pdf Lord Young expressed the view that the Report had "clarity" !! Or perhaps we have finally reached the situation described by Orwell's '1984', where public figures can comfortably hold two diametrically opposed opinions at the same time!

Michty me - looks like he's had a dunt on the heid!

Peter, I'm sure there are many (like me) who would support the reversion to ACoP and Guidance you describe. In some instances the ACoP is already there (CDM) and we could get along quite nicely without the specific Regulations. Same holds for Work at Height, Vibration, Manual Handling, Noise, etc.

Can you please give examples of the excessive amount of prescriptive legislation, excluding the specific legislation for high hazard industry? ACoP and Guidance material is not, as many believe, compiled exclusively by regulators/authorities only. The expert organisations/bodies are involved at the pre-consultation stage to compile the consultative document the anyone can comment etc at the consultation stage. Last, but not least, the Health and Safety Executive Board (previously the health and Safety Commission) that is made up of representatives from industry, trade unions, etc take the final decision based on the responses. You can refer to all IOSH responses to consultations at:- since http://www.iosh.co.uk/in...ation/consultations.aspx It was Lord Robens report that envisaged ACoPs/Guidance, but produced by industry. Lastly, it is not compulsory to comply to ACoP if you can demnonstrate compliance by equivalent means I do not consider repetetive elemenbts as an issue at all--e.g. training, capability, hoierarchy of risk controls. What is required to be done is to demonstrate to the EU/EC that the Directives are being transposed into UK legislation structure! I am not an expert on such matters, but that is why we have had a raft of regulations in the 1990's--it has slowed down now. However, a huge amount of really prescriptive legislation has also been revoked/repealed! (e.g DSEAR repealed prescripteve legislation)

The Foreword to the Policy Exchange document I refer to above was also in his own hand.

Ron I too would welcome a massive reduction in legislation. Just can't see the increase in HSE's budget to achieve this (without necessitating a massive shift of HSE staff from the very thin level of inspection to policy) happening. Would also require quite a lot of investment from the workplace in terms of commenting on the multitude of Consultative Documents that would be needed to make sure that primarily legislation is adequately supported by ACOPs and guidance - though ultimately I think that employers would benefit from a much simpler legislative regime - less is more - leading to improved risk control. A large part of our current legislation is wholly redundant, whilst at the same time becoming ever more prescriptive e.g. current version of Control of Asbestos Regulations, compared with previous incarnation. Way back in 1987, I investigated an accident in which a painter working inside a refurbished tenement flat was struck on the head by a falling scaffold fitting as he was walking past 6m of scaffold en route to the welfare facilities. HSWA Section 2 prosecution of his employer, Section 4 for the main contractor. Went to trial where the prosecution was happy to concede that at his workplace no foreseeable risk of head injury (other than from falling) and, hence his cumulative exposure to risk about 90 seconds per day. The Sheriff accepted the prosecution position that a safety helmet is very cheap and that it was reasonably practicable for the painter to be required to don a helmet each time they exited the building and had to pass beside the scaffold. Guilty on both counts. We then had a consultation document on proposed new head protection regulations, which even attempted to define a schedule of construction activities where there was no reasonably foreseeable risk, e.g. plumber working on guttering with nobody above, no craneage etc.......except that this doesn't work if the gutter falls on your head whilst you are accessing it (Yes I've investigated that one!). So the schedule fortunately died a death. About a year later, I listened somewhat incredulously to the Director General of the HSE explaining to a conference that the use of hard hats in construction was now mandatory......I must have been getting my enforcement position wrong when previously I had told all those contractors and workers that unless no reasonably foreseeable risk already mandatory before the regs. Those regs (not even influenced by an EC Directive) were completely unnecessary, as have been numerous since. Twas Maggie's Ministers that insisted on signing a code of regulations to implement each Directive routinely on the very last day permitted (and always later in Northern Ireland), and finally missing the deadline for implementation of the Temporary or Mobile Construction Sites Directive by 15 months and by even more in N.I. What's wrong with a single requirement for risk assessment - or none? The requirement for risk assessment is implicit in the 1974 Act. How else do you demonstrate that you've done what is reasonably practicable. Unfortunately I'm less than convinced about Damascus. As you, Ron, point out, Lord Young wrote the foreword to the political agenda in the Policy Exchange document. Ultimately, in terms of David Cameron's desire for a "legislative bonfire", this will probably all fizzle out in due course, as was the case when Heseltine's Deregulation Unit was trying to attack occupational H&S legislation. Ironically, Labour Governments have been far more successful in consolidating and reducing the overall number of legislative requirements, if not the number of pages in Redgrave's Health and Safety. Regards, Peter

Jay I presume your comments were aimed at my post. I think Peter has before me has given a very good historical account of over zealous regualtion. However, responding to your post I could cite many examples and my own particular 'favourite' is the HSE's Homeworking guidance indg 226 - http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg226.pdf This guidance is OTT for low risk working and I would be very interested in who the HSE consulted before publishing this load of nonsense. I accept that high risk industries need more explicit regulation, but low risk should treated as such. The bottom line is that due to a plethora of over zealous regulation there is widespread non-compliance, poor interpretation and confusion. No wonder insurance companies are so pedantic and lawyers have a field day. Ray

For homeworking type situations, IOSH has gone one step further, by publishing its guidance with the title, "Out of 'site' out of mind? Managing office teleworking in the 21st century"--it is mostly for "low risk work"--it is excellent guidance with useful checklists. http://www.iosh.co.uk/in..._and_tools.aspx#Managing

Sounds more like you were reading an election manifesto!!!! ;-)

Scary document that. Never mind the world-wide recession, international terrorism, global warming,and the imepnding failure of our eco-systems; let's sort out the H&S Bogey Man!

Thanks for the link. It would do us all well to work on the assumption that he is a very thoughtful experienced man and that his review could be of great service to Health & Safety.

Lord Young goes on about how low risk offices are. We are in a 9 story office block in the city of London. We have a busy loading bay situated in a multi tennated service tunnel. There has been one death in the service tunnel due to WPT ( not related to us thankfully) We have working at height issues in the atrium. We have lifts that need maintaining, manual handling issues work place equipment used by our M&E guys. Electrical systems need testing and inspecting, pressure systems, water hygiene, food hygeine, contractors to supervise, DSE & WRLUD, work place stress, 24hr shift workers, lone workers at our diaster recover site, window cleaners opertaing out of a cradle....that's just of fthe top of my heed but does he really know waht goes on in thesed low risk environments? I have lone workers based out at our DR site

But compare those risks to that of manufacturing, especially the higher risk stuff such as foundries or heavy engineering works, or agriculture or construction, and those office risks are relatively low in comparison. Yes, there are risks associated with offices, predominately down to FM risks, but those risk in my opinion are relatively low, especially when compared to other industries. I think this is the probolem when people don't have a broad range of expereince, they see the risks but can't put them into perspective.

Micheal, he is talking strategically. He is not saying that all office are low risk, more that the vast majority are and as Claire points out the difference is also that workers are not consistently exposed to hazards associated with the higher risk sectors. I seriously doubt that he is proposing that the same level of control would be applied to your offices as to a small 2 roomed ground floor accountants office with 5 employees. What I hope he does mean is that we need to recognise both the difference between those offices and work in higher risk sectors.

Yes a very well written article and at the end of the day I believe nothing will really change law wise. Lord Young is right we do need to change the perception H&S has in the UK and the way in which it’s implemented stopping ‘conker bonkers’ interpretations and associated knee-jerk reactions.